Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (177752)	11/7/2003 9:22:37 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1575704

exactly, how long would 87billion last in the dems vote-buying welfare system?

To: i-node who wrote (177752)	11/7/2003 9:59:30 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575704

DR, re: I agree with all of this, EXCEPT that it is "Bush's" lack of spending dicipline. Presidents don't spend. Congress does. True, presidents can veto legislation, and in unusual circumstances it can be done. But in reality, if Congress wants to spend money it is very difficult, from a practical perspecive, for the president to stop it. From your friends at the Cato Institute: "Of course, the argument can be made that it is unfair to lay excessive blame on Bush for over-spending given that Congress controls the purse strings. A recent study shows that three out of the top five all-time federal spending sprees occurred in the last five years under Republican-controlled Congresses (the other two occurred during World War II). Thus, President Bush appears to have inherited a Congress with established spendthrift credentials. However, that excuse is diminished by the fact that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his three years in office. Instead, he has agreed to sign every piece of legislation crossing his desk, including a bloated farm bill and an intrusive education bill. In contrast, President Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills during his first three years in office." cato.org

To: i-node who wrote (177752)	11/7/2003 5:15:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575704

I agree with all of this, EXCEPT that it is "Bush's" lack of spending dicipline. Presidents don't spend. Congress does. True, presidents can veto legislation, and in unusual circumstances it can be done. But in reality, if Congress wants to spend money it is very difficult, from a practical perspecive, for the president to stop it. Bush came up with the spending request of $87 billion for next year's expenditures on the war. Because Congress must approve it, you blame them and not Bush for this wave of fiscal irresponsibility?