Earmarks

[awpitt]

During his weekly radio address, the President said he directed the OMB to post a list of “earmarks” , or pet projects, that are in the current proposed budget to its Website (http://www.earmarks.omb.gov). I think this is a good thing but I can’t help wondering why he didn’t do this before when the GOP controlled Congress. Let’s not forget about Ted Stevens’ (R - AK) bridge to nowhere.

 

[Kerad]

During his weekly radio address, the President said he directed the OMB to post a list of “earmarks” , or pet projects, that are in the current proposed budget to its Website (http://www.earmarks.omb.gov). I think this is a good thing but I can’t help wondering why he didn’t do this before when the GOP controlled Congress. Let’s not forget about Ted Stevens’ (R - AK) bridge to nowhere.

Well...we know why...don't we? Same reason he's threatens "veto" every time he steps outside, yet only used the veto once before the Dems took the majority in Congress.

President Bush is irrelevant, now.

Well..not completely.



The only thing he can do is veto things, and be "Commander-In-Chief". He can also hope some justices die...to appoint some more conservatives. He's dead in the water...which is why he's desperately trying to pass the BS Immigration "reform" bill. He realizes...after 6 1/2 years..he may not have done anything positive for America.

And that scares him.


He can't do hardly anything besides commit more American military troops to die in Iraq. And he's going to do that as much as he can...full speed ahead...until he's no longer more powerful than the guy at the counter at your neighborhood 7-11.

Because..if he changes course..that would mean he was wrong. And there's nothing that Bush hates more than acknowledging he was wrong. About anything.

His plan for Iraq? Desperately hold on until he can hand it off to the next President.


The Emperor has no clothes.

No surprise to most of us...but shocking to some.

 

[Lenny]

Well...we know why...don't we? Same reason he's threatens "veto" every time he steps outside, yet only used the veto once before the Dems took the majority in Congress.

President Bush is irrelevant, now.

Well..not completely.

The only thing he can do is veto things, and be "Commander-In-Chief". He can also hope some justices die...to appoint some more conservatives. He's dead in the water...which is why he's desperately trying to pass the BS Immigration "reform" bill. He realizes...after 6 1/2 years..he may not have done anything positive for America.

And that scares him.

He can't do hardly anything besides commit more American military troops to die in Iraq. And he's going to do that as much as he can...full speed ahead...until he's no longer more powerful than the guy at the counter at your neighborhood 7-11.

Because..if he changes course..that would mean he was wrong. And there's nothing that Bush hates more than acknowledging he was wrong. About anything.

His plan for Iraq? Desperately hold on until he can hand it off to the next President.

The Emperor has no clothes.

No surprise to most of us...but shocking to some.

Jebus, but you're out of touch with reality again! Why don't you go back on your Lithium and save us all a bunch of blither?

 

[PsyOps]

Well...we know why...don't we? Same reason he's threatens "veto" every time he steps outside, yet only used the veto once before the Dems took the majority in Congress.

President Bush is irrelevant, now.

Well..not completely.

A Republican president vetoing Democrat bills. Imagine that, he is exercising his difference in ideology.

The only thing he can do is veto things, and be "Commander-In-Chief". He can also hope some justices die...to appoint some more conservatives. He's dead in the water...which is why he's desperately trying to pass the BS Immigration "reform" bill. He realizes...after 6 1/2 years..he may not have done anything positive for America.

And that scares him.


He can't do hardly anything besides commit more American military troops to die in Iraq. And he's going to do that as much as he can...full speed ahead...until he's no longer more powerful than the guy at the counter at your neighborhood 7-11.

Because..if he changes course..that would mean he was wrong. And there's nothing that Bush hates more than acknowledging he was wrong. About anything.

His plan for Iraq? Desperately hold on until he can hand it off to the next President.


The Emperor has no clothes.

No surprise to most of us...but shocking to some.

The rest of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to distract everyone from the real truth of how inept, powerless and useless this current Congress has shown itself to be. But as usual, it’s about Bush… always about Bush.

 

[Kerad]

A Republican president vetoing Democrat bills. Imagine that, he is exercising his difference in ideology.



The rest of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to distract everyone from the real truth of how inept, powerless and useless this current Congress has shown itself to be. But as usual, it’s about Bush… always about Bush.

As we've already seen, until the Dems can get enough Republican support to bust Bush's vetoes, they don't have enough power to make many changes at all. Not with Vetoman stubbornly clinging to his failed policies.

 

[vraiblonde]

As we've already seen, until the Dems can get enough Republican support to bust Bush's vetoes, they don't have enough power to make many changes at all.

So you're saying checks and balances works?

 

[Kerad]

So you're saying checks and balances works?

Yes...when employed, sometimes checks and balances work.

 

[SamSpade]

As we've already seen, until the Dems can get enough Republican support to bust Bush's vetoes, they don't have enough power to make many changes at all. Not with Vetoman stubbornly clinging to his failed policies.

And I suspect what I'm going to hear next round of elections is what I said they'd say before last election - the Democrats are going to whine that once again, they couldn't do anything in Washington because of those damned Republicans. It was the same mantra Clinton used to death his first two years in office.

Now I'm generally growing increasingly disgusted with politics in general, but I'm not planning on putting up with this big show of how a new Democratic Congress is supposed to change the face of America, only to see a couple years later, they've done damned little but continue to blame the guys across the aisle even when THEY are in charge.

I kind of doubt they could get things done if EVERY person on the Hill was Democrat. They'd have to blame the weather or something.

 

[PsyOps]

As we've already seen, until the Dems can get enough Republican support to bust Bush's vetoes, they don't have enough power to make many changes at all. Not with Vetoman stubbornly clinging to his failed policies.

Oh, so he's just vetoing because they are democrats. I see!

Oh, BTW... The democrats only have the voting power that the voters gave them. Has nothing to do with Bush.

 

[Kerad]

Oh, so he's just vetoing because they are democrats. I see!

Oh, BTW... The democrats only have the voting power that the voters gave them. Has nothing to do with Bush.

No...he's vetoing because he believes his way is the only way. Certainly his prerogative...no argument there. And you're wrong when you say it has nothing to do with Bush. If he vetoes bills that make it to his desk, it certainly does have to do with him. It's up to the Democrats in congress (as well as like-minded Republicans) to try to secure the Republican votes needed to override a veto.

 

[SamSpade]

No...he's vetoing because he believes his way is the only way. Certainly his prerogative...no argument there. And you're wrong when you say it has nothing to do with Bush. If he vetoes bills that make it to his desk, it certainly does have to do with him. It's up to the Democrats in congress (as well as like-minded Republicans) to try to secure the Republican votes needed to override a veto.

I don't get it - for I don't know how long, Bush has been criticized for NOT vetoing a damned thing. Otherwise known as "rubber-stamping". Even I'm fairly disgusted by it - it reeks of mediocrity.

NOW people are - I don't know, upset? - because he's actually DONE what people have been assailing him for years for not doing?

I mean, the presidential veto power is supposed to exist to keep Congress from steamrolling BS legislation all over the place. It keeps one party from a rubber stamp - something he HAD with a Republican Congress - but it also forces Congress to stop churning out crap loaded with earmarks and pork.

Personally, I think earmarks should be stopped, but that Congress should work longer days in the year if they want any of their earmark stuff to actually pass on its own.

 

[PsyOps]

No...he's vetoing because he believes his way is the only way. Certainly his prerogative...no argument there. And you're wrong when you say it has nothing to do with Bush. If he vetoes bills that make it to his desk, it certainly does have to do with him. It's up to the Democrats in congress (as well as like-minded Republicans) to try to secure the Republican votes needed to override a veto.

Wait a minute... Are you telling me that if a bill makes it to Bush's desk, meaning it didn't get the required votes to override a veto, meaning there are representatives that have constuents that disagreed with that bill, that Bush's veto only speaks for himself and not those constituents, and it's REALLY all about him?

I must have the process all wrong. Another Bush lie I suppose.

 

[SamSpade]

Wait a minute... Are you telling me that if a bill makes it to Bush's desk, meaning it didn't get the required votes to override a veto, meaning there are representatives that have constuents that disagreed with that bill, that Bush's veto only speaks for himself and not those constituents, and it's REALLY all about him?

I must have the process all wrong. Another Bush lie I suppose.

A subtlety that you aren't getting - Bush doesn't speak for the representatives in Congress who voted against the bill - nor for just the voters who voted for him. He speaks for the Executive Branch, which is - him, as Kerad put it.

He might be working along the same lines as his counter parts in Congress, but strictly speaking he does not represent the people who voted for them - they do. Some people voted Republican but aren't for Bush.

 

[ylexot]

No...he's vetoing because he believes his way is the only way. Certainly his prerogative...no argument there. And you're wrong when you say it has nothing to do with Bush. If he vetoes bills that make it to his desk, it certainly does have to do with him. It's up to the Democrats in congress (as well as like-minded Republicans) to try to secure the Republican votes needed to override a veto.

Or they could try to work with Bush to come up with something that he will not veto...maybe something with bipartisan and popular support.

 

[MMDad]

Once upon a time, there was a village that was so poor that all they owned was an elephant. The only thing to eat was elephant poop. It smelled bad and tasted bad, but it kept them alive since the elephant ate lots of peanuts.

Along came a donkey crap peddler named Nancy. She convinced some of the villagers that donkey poop was better because it didn't taste or smell as bad as elephant poop. The naive people in the village believed her, so they switched to donkey poop.

The donkey poop didn't smell as bad because it was more completely digested. All nutrition was gone, and there were no peanuts. The donkey poop eaters languished, while the elephant poop eaters survived by picking the peanuts out of the poop.

The moral of the story is: if you have to eat poop in order to survive, do you want peanuts or not?

 

[SamSpade]

Or they could try to work with Bush to come up with something that he will not veto...maybe something with bipartisan and popular support.

That's what Bush claimed was the reason for his lack of veto - and it strikes me as a weak argument. No one gets that lucky for that long.

 

[Kerad]

I don't get it - for I don't know how long, Bush has been criticized for NOT vetoing a damned thing. Otherwise known as "rubber-stamping". Even I'm fairly disgusted by it - it reeks of mediocrity.

NOW people are - I don't know, upset? - because he's actually DONE what people have been assailing him for years for not doing?

I mean, the presidential veto power is supposed to exist to keep Congress from steamrolling BS legislation all over the place. It keeps one party from a rubber stamp - something he HAD with a Republican Congress - but it also forces Congress to stop churning out crap loaded with earmarks and pork.

Personally, I think earmarks should be stopped, but that Congress should work longer days in the year if they want any of their earmark stuff to actually pass on its own.

I don't think Bush was being criticized because he didn't veto anything...I think the criticism came from the appearance of the Republican majority giving Bush everything he wanted...rubberstamping the blank checks. Of course he's not going to veto bills that may as well have been written by himself.

Now the bills heading his way aren't of the "here's exactly what you want, exactly how you wanted it" variety...and every third word out of his mouth is "veto". Again...that's his prerogative. However, it certainly illuminates the cozy situation he had during his first six years.

As for earmarks...I fully agree. I've said numerous times that all bills sent up should be "clean" bills...unless the extras are directly related to the main body.

 

[Kerad]

Or they could try to work with Bush to come up with something that he will not veto...maybe something with bipartisan and popular support.

Yes, they could do that...in theory.

Isn't that what they're trying to do with immigration? Strange thing about that is, I don't know personally know anybody who wants that bill to pass, the way it's currently written. They may have the "bipartisan", but don't seem to have the "popular".

 

[SamSpade]

Yes, they could do that...in theory.

Isn't that what they're trying to do with immigration? Strange thing about that is, I don't know personally know anybody who wants that bill to pass, the way it's currently written. They may have the "bipartisan", but don't seem to have the "popular".

Bipartisan seems to have different meanings depending on which party you're with.

To Republicans, it means a compromised bill devoid of any real meaning or chance of success. "Mediocre". This goes two ways. Hard-Liners detest the idea of compromise - others are eager to pass something bipartisan to put a feather in their cap.

To Democrats it means "what we want". As in, we make the bill, you sign it. Read "Health Care Reform".

 

[Kerad]

Bipartisan seems to have different meanings depending on which party you're with.

To Republicans, it means a compromised bill devoid of any real meaning or chance of success. "Mediocre". This goes two ways. Hard-Liners detest the idea of compromise - others are eager to pass something bipartisan to put a feather in their cap.

To Democrats it means "what we want". As in, we make the bill, you sign it. Read "Health Care Reform".

You're entitled to your opinion.

Remember...during the "emergency" war spending supplement drama? Bush kept saying he was willing to work with the Democrats to "compromise" on a spending bill. The Dems would come to the White House...and they'd have a nice little chat.

The next day Bush would regurgitate his usual statement: Send me a clean bill with absolutely no restrictions, benchmarks or timelines. In other words...he's willing to compromise, as long as he get exactly what he wants, how he wants it.