Earmarks

[Pete]

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.

Actually the time line was the deal breaker and he said that from the beginning.

What is ironic is how Democrats berate him and Republicans for "spending money like a drunken sailor", then run on "fiscal responsibility" yet send up a bill of their own packed with pork.

Hip hip hipocrisy.

 

[Kerad]

Actually the time line was the deal breaker and he said that from the beginning.

What is ironic is how Democrats berate him and Republicans for "spending money like a drunken sailor", then run on "fiscal responsibility" yet send up a bill of their own packed with pork.

Hip hip hipocrisy.

Bush rejected the one without timelines...the one that had "non-binding benchmarks". Heck...if the Dems sent one that just said "We'd like you to kind of, sort of, in a round about way acknowledge that maybe the US should maybe consider starting to withdraw troops at some point in the ambiguous future...if you want." he still would have rejected it.

As for fiscal responsibility and pork..."ironic" is too kind of a phrase. "Fracking Bullspit" is almost the term I would use. The same could be said for the President, as well. Suddenly he is opposed to earmarks and BS spending...after being just fine with it for the first six years.

 

[Booboo3604]

A comprehensive list of the earmarks listed in the HASC FY08 defense authorization bill

"Pork Alert: Defense Authorization
Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today published a comprehensive list of the 447 earmarks worth $7.6 billion in the [House version of the] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, H.R. 1585. The bill is one of the first to fall under a new House rule that requires public disclosure of an earmark's sponsor, recipient, amount, and justification."

Link to the web site's document:
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10794&news_iv_ctrl=1441

 

[PsyOps]

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.

There is a difference between speaking for them and speaking with them. Bush is speaking with those that are against the bill. It's not only his prerogative but also his responsibility. The executive branch isn’t some obscure entity making decisions on its own. The president does, from time-to-time, speak for the American people. I know that’s impossible for many folks to believe about Bush.

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.

To me this discussion is more about the office than the person. When it comes to passing laws he is an extension of Congress. But it’s not surprising so many people think Bush making decisions for personal reasons rather than in the interest of the people; that’s the level of distrust (and even hatred in many cases) folks have for Bush.