It's a shame the libs in the Senate won't keep their word. It's also a shame that they want to tax and spend their way to this nation's demise. Read about the libpig liars below... Revealing... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116985847292589625.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks Watch What They Do January 27, 2007; Page A8 The next time Senate Democrats preach spending restraint, readers may want to recall this week's vote on the line-item veto. The new majority had a perfect opportunity to add a new check on spending earmarks but quickly passed it by. New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg needed 60 votes to end debate on his amendment to give the President Bush "rescission" authority. That tool would have allowed Mr. Bush and his successors to single out and send back to Congress earmarks and other wasteful projects in spending bills. Congress would have then been required to vote quickly, up or down, on the spending cuts. Mr. Gregg's bill was nearly identical to 1995 legislation that was supported by 20 Democrats who are still in the Senate. Yet Mr. Gregg won only 49 votes, and among Democrats only Indiana's Evan Bayh and Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman voted in favor of the spending restraint they've preached. Among Republicans, only Alabama's Richard Shelby voted for his beloved pork-barrel power. At Tuesday night's State of the Union address, the Members applauded for the cameras when Mr. Bush spoke of controlling earmarks. A day later the Senators showed what they really care about. Democrats who voted for enhanced spending rescission authority in 1995 and didn't support it this time around because their partisan rage outweighs their prudence: Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Sheets Byrd Babs Boxer Kent Conrad Dodd Byron Dorgan Russ "White Flag" Feingold Tom Harkin Dan Inouye Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Mikulski Murray Dirty Harry Reid Jay Rockefeller
They were actually just being efficient. they know that its a waste of time since GW is going to spend on everything.
That Line-Item Veto passed and was then ruled unconstitutional. Are you saying the GOP is so incompetent that they proposed something that's not constitutional? Or do think, just perhaps, there are some major differences between the two?
The WSJ Editorial Board is on record as saying they are virtually identical. Perhaps you would like to offer a rejoinder to that? Your idle thoughts really hold no water.
I never suggested it was different or not. We have two options: 1. The GOP is incompetent 2. The Line-item veto is different Which do you prefer?
Not my problem. I'm not one that levelled an unsubstantiated accusation and is trying to weasel my way out of it. That would be you. Perhaps the bill is different. Or they learned something from the short period it was in effect in the 1990s. Or perhaps they didn't realize the last time around that a President could be so incompetent and they don't trust Bush to use it properly, given his record of inepititude. There are many possibilities.
I agree. I don't think the line-item veto would do much to stop spending. I may simply just reallocate where the money is spent. If a congressman thinks the President will line-item veto one of his pet projects, he will simply negotiate more. He may even withhold his vote until the President agrees to not veto his project. I think this applies to all Presidents, not just GW.
Actually, quite the opposite. You attempted to rebut the WSJ piece by insinuating that differences existing between the '95 legislation and this time around. Sadly for you, you were incapable of backing up that rebuttal. The only weaseling going on here is your weaseling out of donating to this website, despite your boasts of your small business successes and your gambling exploits. And that folks, is a CHECKMATE.
it's politics, pure and simple. if a clinton were president now, the president would already have the line item veto...and full bi-partisan support for the surge...although it somehow sounds vaguely pornographic to say "surge" and "clinton" in the same sentence.
Lots of sour grapes in this thread. ANd by the way, I support the troops, I don't see that anywhere in your post, so I assume that you don't.
3. The makeup of the Supreme Court is different now and it could go the other way (though it would probably just fall 5-4 instead of the 6-3 margin it had last time).
The WSJ Editorial Board? The hallmark of objectivity! Well then it must be that they are virtually identical. But of course, they are not. Here's a description of the 1995 version: For the current one, see my post (#15) in the cited thread, which discusses the one considered last year... which is virtually identical to the one today: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=123352&page=1&pp=20&highlight=line+item They are not close to being the same... Republicans will argue that the current version is "watered down" because they have to vote on the recissions for them to go into effect while under the 1995 bill, the recissions went into effect unless vetoed. However, the devil is in the details and this current version allows a President to string out recissions regardless of what Congress does and is also more insidious in a number of details that give the President much more real power than the previous version. I'll not go into the major differences, but you can read my previous post to see just how really bad a bill this one is... and why any thinking person this side of John Yoo would be opposed.
Don't be ridiculous. This line-item veto bill wouldn't pass any sane Congress and there would not be full bi-partisan support for the surge because there wouldn't be a surge or an Iraq War under Clinton. And this surge can't even get "partisan" support from the Republicans.
The only thing being revealed is your own lying mendacity, Trader_J, and it is nothing new. D&D. Playpen of Lying Pseudo Conservatives.
I really don't know anything about the issue being discussed in this thread, but it's good to see Trader_Jorge back...things were starting to get a bit one-sided and boring here .
It may no longer be boring, but it's still one-sided... TJ has lost all his recent arguments... his protestations, non-sequiters, and baggadacio notwithstanding.
Yep. Sure is a damn shame that Bill Clinton had political & communication skills while George W. Bush has zero of either, eh? Sucks to be a Dubya supporter. The man has no game. It's kind of like being a Tampa Bay Devil Rays season ticket holder.
