Bush now says he will veto excess spending :rolleyes:

[Bunz]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/16/bush.radio.ap/index.html

So now, after 6 years of uncontrolled spending, burning through a huge surplus allowing record deficit spending while the GOP was in power without vetoing a single spending bill that were all completely laden with useless pork. Bush has finally threatened to veto bills that come to him that spend to much money. Interesting to note that now after getting a taste of being in the minority the GOP is now bragging about how they have the votes to uphold any veto. This isnt about spending, or attempting to reign it in, it is a political move to further the GOP and an attempt to hurt the Democrats. But like most Bush endeavours, it will be lethargic, pointless and be full of unintended consequences.

[SW85]

Wait, your defense is that it's OK for Democrats to do it because Republicans did it before them?

In case you didn't notice, people didn't vote for the Republicans. Because they were tired of being lied to about things like this. That's why Democrats rightly campaigned against it and held the GOP's feet to the fire for it, and that's why the Democrats won in 2006.

From every indication I've seen, the Dems are surpassing the GOP in spending already -- they've waived the PAYGO rules they said they'd implement, boosted discretionary spending beyond what Bush ever pushed for (9%; as I recall the most he ever asked for was half that, and I don't believe he got that from the GOP Congress), tacked on tens of billions of dollars in earmarks to irrelevant bills, and whatever happened to that bill that would abolish earmark secrecy?

Yes it's shoddy for Bush to rail against earmarks after six years of signing them into law. But no one likes or cares about Bush; that's why they rejected his party in 2006. It's even shoddier for Democrats, who preyed on the public's good faith that they could restore workable policies in governmnet, to do the same, because they should know better.

[drippinhun]

Wait, your defense is that it's OK for Democrats to do it because Republicans did it before them?

In case you didn't notice, people didn't vote for the Republicans. Because they were tired of being lied to about things like this. That's why Democrats rightly campaigned against it and held the GOP's feet to the fire for it, and that's why the Democrats won in 2006.

From every indication I've seen, the Dems are surpassing the GOP in spending already -- they've waived the PAYGO rules they said they'd implement, boosted discretionary spending beyond what Bush ever pushed for (9%; as I recall the most he ever asked for was half that, and I don't believe he got that from the GOP Congress), tacked on tens of billions of dollars in earmarks to irrelevant bills, and whatever happened to that bill that would abolish earmark secrecy?

Yes it's shoddy for Bush to rail against earmarks after six years of signing them into law. But no one likes or cares about Bush; that's why they rejected his party in 2006. It's even shoddier for Democrats, who preyed on the public's good faith that they could restore workable policies in governmnet, to do the same, because they should know better.

The voters rejected the Republicans because of the Iraq occupation.

[Segep]

Wait, your defense is that it's OK for Democrats to do it because Republicans did it before them?

In case you didn't notice, people didn't vote for the Republicans. Because they were tired of being lied to about things like this. That's why Democrats rightly campaigned against it and held the GOP's feet to the fire for it, and that's why the Democrats won in 2006.

From every indication I've seen, the Dems are surpassing the GOP in spending already -- they've waived the PAYGO rules they said they'd implement, boosted discretionary spending beyond what Bush ever pushed for (9%; as I recall the most he ever asked for was half that, and I don't believe he got that from the GOP Congress), tacked on tens of billions of dollars in earmarks to irrelevant bills, and whatever happened to that bill that would abolish earmark secrecy?

Yes it's shoddy for Bush to rail against earmarks after six years of signing them into law. But no one likes or cares about Bush; that's why they rejected his party in 2006. It's even shoddier for Democrats, who preyed on the public's good faith that they could restore workable policies in governmnet, to do the same, because they should know better.
They do know better, they just choose to ignore the people. The dems are no better than the GOP. We only have one party. They are our agents and if they aren't doing what we want them to do, toss all the bums out on their arses.

[vyo476]

The voters rejected the Republicans because of the Iraq occupation.

That was one of the biggest reasons, potentially the biggest reason, but certainly not the only reason.

[drippinhun]

That was one of the biggest reasons, potentially the biggest reason, but certainly not the only reason.

Workable policies are the charge of the Administration. Congress can only create, instruct, advise and defund.

[SW85]

The voters rejected the Republicans because of the Iraq occupation.

That's questionable (if the GOP had a stellar record everywhere but Iraq, they'd probably have gotten some slack from the voters), but irrelevant, anyway. All I said was that the GOP lost because of Bush.

The OP is claiming, as a defense, that the Democrats are not doing anything Bush didn't do, when they won the election by promising not to do anything Bush would do, which is now exactly what they're doing -- apparently to such a degree that Bush himself can't even stomach it. It is simply immoral to exploit the American people's presumption of goodwill in order to work mischief when they're not looking.

[drippinhun]

That's questionable (if the GOP had a stellar record everywhere but Iraq, they'd probably have gotten some slack from the voters), but irrelevant, anyway. All I said was that the GOP lost because of Bush.

The OP is claiming, as a defense, that the Democrats are not doing anything Bush didn't do, when they won the election by promising not to do anything Bush would do, which is now exactly what they're doing -- apparently to such a degree that Bush himself can't even stomach it. It is simply immoral to exploit the American people's presumption of goodwill in order to work mischief when they're not looking.

So you honestly believe the people didn't toss the GOP for their blind and unswerving support of almost everything Bush? You think the Democrats won based on their fragmented (remember, that party does not goosestep like the cohesive Republicans did) platforms? The way I heard it was anything but Bush which because of the party's unity caused them to fall on the sword.

[SW85]

So you honestly believe the people didn't toss the GOP for their blind and unswerving support of almost everything Bush?

Didn't I literally just say "the GOP lost because of Bush"?

You think the Democrats won based on their fragmented (remember, that party does not goosestep like the cohesive Republicans did) platforms?

They won because people were sick of Republicans and their intellectual dishonesty.

[USMC the Almighty]

The voters rejected the Republicans because of the Iraq occupation.

I don't buy this. Every conservative who didn't vote (or voted Democrat) in the '06 elections that I talked to cited spending and the border (lack of enforcement/wall) as their chief motivation, not the war.

[USMC the Almighty]

So you honestly believe the people didn't toss the GOP for their blind and unswerving support of almost everything Bush? You think the Democrats won based on their fragmented (remember, that party does not goosestep like the cohesive Republicans did) platforms? The way I heard it was anything but Bush which because of the party's unity caused them to fall on the sword.

That's not true at all. Off the top of my head I can cite a number of instances where conservative Republicans were harshly critical of the Bush administation: (1) spending (2) Dubai ports (3) lack of border enforcement/amnesty bills

On the contrary, any Democrat who doesn't cater to the left-wing, anti-war base gets ostracized (Joe Lieberman, who voted with the libs 90% of the time) and now you are even starting to see Hilary Clinton move significantly far to the left regarding the war which is a sad sight.

[jb_1430]

I don't buy this. Every conservative who didn't vote (or voted Democrat) in the '06 elections that I talked to cited spending and the border (lack of enforcement/wall) as their chief motivation, not the war.

"spending and the border"??? I suspect their decisions to change their vote away from Republican, or not vote at all, because of "spending and the border" will only make the two issues worse. MARK

[USMC the Almighty]

What do you mean?

[jb_1430]

What do you mean?

The Democratic controlled Congress will not produce what the conservatives wanted regarding spending and the border. Quite the opposite. MARK

[USMC the Almighty]

The Democratic controlled Congress will not produce what the conservatives wanted regarding spending and the border. Quite the opposite. MARK

Oh, yes, I understand now. I don't want to put words into their mouths, but my guess is that they figured by booting them out of office, it will teach them a lesson and they'll return to the conservative roots.

[SW85]

More likely they either spoiled their ballots or stayed home altogether. (I'd have done that if my Congressman was bad on immigration and spending).

[Bunz]

I voted democrat this year based on the situation in Iraq. I am what one would call a swing vote, supported Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004. One can try and turn the tables and blame the democrats but it is Bush who did that for 6 years people. The democrats are far from perfect, and I wish I could cast a meaningful vote for an entirely independant candidate, but one must work within the flawed system we now work with in these heady days of uber partisan politics. That is what this whole thread was supposed to be about, the degredation of DC through our two party system. The democrats have not nearly been as bad as the GOP in thier pork, and my state is home to the king of pork in Senator Stevens, and I have seen the direct benefits of it here. But the notion that now, after 6 years of uncontrolled spending, legislation passing, back door deals and two wars that have far exceeded what the GOP sold us on, NOW is the time to bring out the veto pen? Come on, see this for what it is, a dirty administration that goes to the limit and beyond in its exercise of executive powers, its piss poor record in foreign policy and only now is he worried about spending. This is a joke, and if he starts to veto critical bills based on spending issues then this is a case of the pot calling the kettle blacker.

[drippinhun]

Truth be known, the so-called Republican fiscal prudence is nothing more than a myth. But like other misnomers - "Good for business" "Leaders in war" - it's just more good old jingoism that is entirely void of content.

Federal Pork Spending Plummets
Watchdog group publishes annual Pig Book of wasteful projects

March 12, 2007

...this year pork-barrel spending was dramatically reduced compared to recent years, as government watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste announced last week with the release of its annual "Congressional Pig Book." Only two of 11 appropriations bills, for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, were enacted by Congress last year, while the remaining nine were held because of a moratorium on earmarks.

CAGW this year found 2,658 projects it identified as pork at a cost of $13.2 billion, compared to $29 billion spent on 9,963 projects as outlined in last year's "Pig Book." The previous year it reported finding $27.3 billion spent on 13,997 projects.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3944

This is where it accelerated - the Contract on, oops 'er I meant, for <sic> America.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/pork/graph.an.gif