Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Lead All

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ there is an argument out there that refutes what you are saying, but I am too tired to look for it. As it is now the majority can leave the minority 100% out in the cold if it wanted anyway, at least in the house. So nothing would really change.

Yeah, other than in instances where the party in power lacks a super majority and needs enough votes to close off debate and bring the bill to a vote (anti-fillibuster)

Fern

he said the house. fillibusters are senate.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Good to see the pathetic apologists have managed to make this Bush's fault.

Good to see the pathetic apologists deny Bush's fault and blame those who point it out.

Not one attacker addressed the obvious point above - that Clinton represents the biggest state of any presidential candidate in the Senate, and so would be *expected* to have the most.

Goes to show how dishonestly a fact can be cherry-picked.

Having said that, I continue to put Hillary at the bottom of my list for democrats for president, because of her overly corporate-oriented policies. Unfortunately, it looks like her or Obama.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Here's what I have been able to find:

Link to .xls of all 2008 earmarks in House Defense bill with requestor

Here's an .xls of 2008 Senatorial earmarks that they are proud enough to claim (not all of them though)

This one has an .xls that shows over $15B in the omnibus spending bills for 2008 alone

JACKPOT!!! List of all earmarks by bill category

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Line item veto is a horrible idea. Yeah, I think it would prolly lead to all kinds of horrible unintended consequences It would be a colossal increase in the power of the executive branch compared to the legislature.Yeah, so it won't happen Even if it only requires a simple majority to overrule it is such a huge club as to be massively damaging to the power of the 'coequal' branch Here I disagree. IMO the "simple majority" over-ride would mean the line item is useless (and lets face it, the executive is already far beyond what should be the limits of its power as it is)
I'm not about that. Congress has been able over the decades to whittle away at presidential powers. IMO, Presidential powers are over-rated

Fern

I have a very strong feeling that a line item veto, even with a simple majority override would end up being far from useless. As far as presidential power goes, do you really think that? Are you thinking of specific examples? I think its pretty clear that as the size of the federal government goes the power of the executive increases. Considering the massive expansion of the government over the last 60 years or so... that's a lot of power. In particular the executive controls all avenues of information available to the congress. In the past when agencies weren't that big, etc... that wasn't such a big deal. Now that is an ENORMOUS amount of power. Not only that, but the power of Congress to declare war has been all but wiped out... presidents now frequently use troops, etc without having to ask Congress. (note: i'm not debating the relative merits of that, just saying that in the past that would not have been okay)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

-snip-

Fern

I have a very strong feeling that a line item veto, even with a simple majority override would end up being far from useless.
I don't see how. If the line-item veto is overridden with a simple majority looks like a useless waste of time to me. The exact same vote as before would all that's needed to override the veto?

Sounds more a "are you sure?" thingy. Big whoop, imo

As far as presidential power goes, do you really think that? Are you thinking of specific examples?
What I said was what I think about others' perception. So, a discussion here isn't really about how power the Pres actually has, how much I think he has, but about how much other people think he has.

But yeah. I really think that many people overstate the Pres's actual power.

I think its pretty clear that as the size of the federal government goes the power of the executive increases. Considering the massive expansion of the government over the last 60 years or so... that's a lot of power.
Again, I'm not saying the Pres doens't have power, just that I believe others overstate it

In particular the executive controls all avenues of information available to the congress. In the past when agencies weren't that big, etc... that wasn't such a big deal. Now that is an ENORMOUS amount of power.
I was not aware of this. I've seen them holding hearings etc. The Pres has no control over those info gathering excercises. I suppose they are other examples taht you are referring to.

Not only that, but the power of Congress to declare war has been all but wiped out... presidents now frequently use troops, etc without having to ask Congress. (note: i'm not debating the relative merits of that, just saying that in the past that would not have been okay)
Perfect example of where I disagree with people about Pres powers. IIRC it was around the Nixon's era when Congress passed some rules limiting the Pres's ability to employ troops without their authority. I.e., there was a reduction in his/her power.

Congress has lost NO power to declare war. They can declare war as they see fit. The Pres can't veto them on that AFAIK. Rather, IMO, it's that they've preferred to decalre war in wishy-washy terms so if it turns out unpopular they can re-write history and try to avoid blame. IMO, the whole "war" issue is just that Congress has gotten chicken-sh!t with their responsibility

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I have a very strong feeling that a line item veto, even with a simple majority override would end up being far from useless.
I don't see how. If the line-item veto is overridden with a simple majority looks like a useless waste of time to me. The exact same vote as before would all that's needed to override the veto?

Sounds more a "are you sure?" thingy. Big whoop, imo

As far as presidential power goes, do you really think that? Are you thinking of specific examples?
What I said was what I think about others' perception. So, a discussion here isn't really about how power the Pres actually has, how much I think he has, but about how much other people think he has.

But yeah. I really think that many people overstate the Pres's actual power.

I think its pretty clear that as the size of the federal government goes the power of the executive increases. Considering the massive expansion of the government over the last 60 years or so... that's a lot of power.
Again, I'm not saying the Pres doens't have power, just that I believe others overstate it

In particular the executive controls all avenues of information available to the congress. In the past when agencies weren't that big, etc... that wasn't such a big deal. Now that is an ENORMOUS amount of power.
I was not aware of this. I've seen them holding hearings etc. The Pres has no control over those info gathering excercises. I suppose they are other examples taht you are referring to.

Not only that, but the power of Congress to declare war has been all but wiped out... presidents now frequently use troops, etc without having to ask Congress. (note: i'm not debating the relative merits of that, just saying that in the past that would not have been okay)
Perfect example of where I disagree with people about Pres powers. IIRC it was around the Nixon's era when Congress passed some rules limiting the Pres's ability to employ troops without their authority. I.e., there was a reduction in his/her power.

Congress has lost NO power to declare war. They can declare war as they see fit. The Pres can't veto them on that AFAIK. Rather, IMO, it's that they've preferred to decalre war in wishy-washy terms so if it turns out unpopular they can re-write history and try to avoid blame. IMO, the whole "war" issue is just that Congress has gotten chicken-sh!t with their responsibility

Fern

While its true that Congress has lost no power to declare war, the president has gained massive power to deploy troops without congressional authorization, which sort of makes the whole declaring war thing moot. And while its true that congress did pass some laws limiting the president's ability to deploy troops abroad without its consent, I would say that is more of a reduction made after a massive expansion. (ie. two steps forward, one step back). Originally sending troops to fight other countries was certainly the purview of congress, and a good portion of that power has transferred to the executive.

Congress does hold hearings and such, but sadly it is exactly what I'm talking about. The hearings they hold generally involve them asking questions of executive branch agencies. So really they are relying on the executive to tell them things. Not that the President could get away with outright lying to them (too often that is.. har har), but if you are the one supplying the information you have a lot of room to present the facts in the light that best serves your purpose. If you are able to filter the information that someone else gets, you hold a lot of power over them.

I tend to think that people actually underestimate the power of the modern presidency. A lot of it depends on where you think the courts will eventually come down on some of the more egregious executive power grabs that Bush has engaged in though I guess.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While its true that Congress has lost no power to declare war, the president has gained massive power to deploy troops without congressional authorization, which sort of makes the whole declaring war thing moot.
[b[]Where is an example of this new/increased power?[/b]

And while its true that congress did pass some laws limiting the president's ability to deploy troops abroad without its consent, I would say that is more of a reduction made after a massive expansion. (ie. two steps forward, one step back). Originally sending troops to fight other countries was certainly the purview of congress, and a good portion of that power has transferred to the executive.
The Pres has always had this power. A fairly decent example is Afganistan. After determing 911 was the work of the AQ/Taliban and (assuming) they remained an imminent threat, the Pres has the power to send troops immediately. Under the appropriate circumstances no need to wait for Congress.

Iraq is a good example of where congressional aproval is required. Simply put, they gave it. Sure it was wishy-washy, but the SCOTUS even recognizes it.

As I've asked before, if Congress didn't intend to authorize GWB to send troops WHERE were the complaints in 2003 immediately upon his action? Or even when he gave Saddam the deadline shortly before launching?

I don't recall ANY complaints from Congress about GWB abusing the power, or how they didn't actually give him any power, until some years later when the Iraq "war" wasn't polling very well.


Congress does hold hearings and such, but sadly it is exactly what I'm talking about. The hearings they hold generally involve them asking questions of executive branch agencies. So really they are relying on the executive to tell them things. Not that the President could get away with outright lying to them (too often that is.. har har), but if you are the one supplying the information you have a lot of room to present the facts in the light that best serves your purpose. If you are able to filter the information that someone else gets, you hold a lot of power over them.
Well, I was thinking more their inquiries of industries etc where CEOs etc testify.


I tend to think that people actually underestimate the power of the modern presidency. A lot of it depends on where you think the courts will eventually come down on some of the more egregious executive power grabs that Bush has engaged in though I guess.

Fern

 

[0roo0roo]

well i guess that means she can get things DONE. change is fun to say, but words are cheap.
reality is politics, compromise, deal making..politics is ugly. get with the program.
you think obama means change? actually he'll turn the congress red so quick the only change will be spirit as all his words come to nothing. the clintons were hated for being left moderates. obamas claim is that he is even more left. you think the republicans will be fine with that? lol, obama democrats do not live in reality. if you think the clintons had a sh*t storm, you have no idea what kind of mess an obama presidency would create. change... yea..you want to unite and revive the republican spirit to oppose obama and give them their strength back after the beating its had after bush, thats change i guess.

the whole clean washington outsider nonsense was what got bush into the white house anyways. lotta good it did.

 

[IronWing]

Maybe we need to step back and recall what earmarks are. The President proposes a budget and sends it to Congress. Congress takes it up and changes it, adding or subtracting from what the President has proposed. What each President then does, either directly through the White House press office or indirectly through party reps in Congress, is to decry those additions made by Congress as gross wastes of money, simply because they were not included in the President's proposal. The media picks up on this and pretends that there is some sort of objective baseline budget that Congress is going over. In reality, it is just one politician's (the President) proposal being changed by other politicians (Congress). Accepting the President's proposal as somehow clean of special interest interference and attacking Congressional changes is naive. The Bush administration generally submits budget proposals that are stripped of the previous year's Congressional changes, sticking to what the President's prior year proposal was. So each year Congress sticks all the stuff back in that it had stuck in the year before and the President shrieks "Budget busting earmarks!" It is simply political theater and this President is a very good player.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp
The only dancing I want to watch is pabster, Phorse and proJ do the tango when Hillery takes office!


I could care less who wins, I'm voting with the majority but I will find it all funny to watch!

Suprised you didnt throw me in there...but I do have a couple of questions:

Who is Hillery? I know who Hillary is, but not Hillery.

If you COULD care less, why dont you? If you COULD care less, that means you DO care a little. Now, if you said "I couldnt care less", well, you couldnt.

Just some observations 🙂