State of the union speech

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CSMR
It seems the line item veto is much ado about very little. Even if they pass a constitutional version, according to the Cato Institite (which is in favour) it would only save $5billion a year.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html

Yes, but that estimate was made in '98, and given how the current GOP congress has only increased its appetite for pork, I'd guess the $5B figure is much higher today. I'd support a line item veto amendment. The current 'bundling' of spending bills is ridiculous, and it's abundantly clear a congress controlled by either party isn't going to limit spending on its own.

I agree with you that the "bundling" is a problem, but I believe that needs to be address inside Congress.

The President does have the right just to veto the bill and tell them to get the crap out of there before he'll sign it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CSMR
It seems the line item veto is much ado about very little. Even if they pass a constitutional version, according to the Cato Institite (which is in favour) it would only save $5billion a year.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html

Yes, but that estimate was made in '98, and given how the current GOP congress has only increased its appetite for pork, I'd guess the $5B figure is much higher today. I'd support a line item veto amendment. The current 'bundling' of spending bills is ridiculous, and it's abundantly clear a congress controlled by either party isn't going to limit spending on its own.

I agree with you that the "bundling" is a problem, but I believe that needs to be address inside Congress.

Theoretically true, but not practical; I have absolutely no faith that Congress will cure itself of pork addiction in my lifetime. And I don't think a change of party will make too much of a difference.

The President does have the right just to veto the bill and tell them to get the crap out of there before he'll sign it.

But that's why they (Congress) bundle the spending bills into these massive things no one even reads anymore; a veto would effectively mean a gov't shutdown, and the President isn't going to want to play that game of chicken every year, so he/she will usually blink first. GWB certainly has.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All a line item veto does is give the President a means to blackmail Congress. This would be more abused than torches at a Klan meeting.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
All a line item veto does is give the President a means to blackmail Congress. This would be more abused than torches at a Klan meeting.

And all a lack of a line item veto does is give Congress the means to blackmail the President by cramming all appropriations into a few pork-laden bills, daring him to veto them and shut down the gov't. This is already being abused more than torches at a Klan meeting. Fiscal irresponsibility WILL doom this republic.

 

[piasabird]

If an elected official like Al Gore can claim he invented the Internet, then who cares what the president said. Prove him wrong!

The federal government can write no law prohibiting someone from expressing their religious beliefs. Since he is his own boss he can say whatever he wants to.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

lol we have to stop human / animal hybrids?? did anyone else catch that haha

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If an elected official like Al Gore can claim he invented the Internet, then who cares what the president said. Prove him wrong!

The federal government can write no law prohibiting someone from expressing their religious beliefs. Since he is his own boss he can say whatever he wants to.

Al Gore claiming he invented the internet is a myth and has been debunked on here more than once.

False.

 

[trenchfoot]

based on what bush "promised" in his past two presidential campaigns and state of the union addresses vs. what his actual track record indicates during his tenure, i'd say whatever he "apparently" proposed in ways to help the every day ordinary citizen is exactly what he really didn't mean to say.

the "help" he offered to middle america and the poor is his version of the "truth" that is duplicitous via slick technical legalese. true to form, his words to the ordinary masses have been propagandized, obfuscated, compartmentalized, re-defined, morphed and shinola'd by rove and his wall street marketeers.

from what i've read in his speech, he's saying to middle america and the poor that we've intentionally opened our markets to the world so that our multi-$$ corporations can increase their margins by forcing domestic manufacturing wages and benefits downward to become more competitive with china, india and some developing nations that provide poverty-level wages.

 

[randym431]

addiction to oil? I didnt hear him speak of the addiction to drug company money.

An "opt-out" for employer med plans? Do the math. Just another tax cut to the rich.

Not a bad speach for the anti-Christ...

 

[LumbergTech]

he spoke well, the content was just ridiculously vague and purposely misleading

 

[CaptnKirk]

His wanting to help with medical assistance and education didn't even make 12 hours before the GOP killed it.

Close Vote On Budget

Addicted to oil ? Looking for an alternative ? - Ain't gonna Happen !

Courtesy of the Empty Suit.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Didn't the chimp in chief give a rerun of this sotu to the Grand Ol' Opry? Good to see him addressing people outside his base :roll:
Damn, what a great uniter he is.