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.