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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonkie who wrote (554242)	3/21/2004 1:21:41 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It is Congress' job to KNOW what the cost is of what THEY approve-or NOT approve it. It is not the executive branch's job to do THEIR job for them. Nobody ELECTS bureaucrats. The executive branch doesn't get a DIME unless Congress takes COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY and gives it to them. The anti-American Marxist/Leninist Democrats in Congress fought tooth and nail because they wanted to spend TRILLIONS! The difference between 400 and 540 in that context is a rounding error-only of interest to psuedo-populists like Ross Perot or Blowhard Bill O'Reilly. If they weren't a total third world legislature due to a lack of TERM LIMITS, they would not consistently abdicate their constitutional oaths every chance they get. Instead they ask the BUREAUCRATS what to do-and the BUREAUCRATS tell them. No one lied at all (that's just the usual anti-American left wing propaganda.) Our "Congress" asked bureaucrats to take their constitutional responsibility load off their substandard shoulders-and the bureaucrats did what bureaucrats always do: gave them the "committee" answer. The solution is as IT A:WAYS is on EVERY matter of our day: Congressional term limits. Until we impose them, we will have a BAD Congress, and we will have to GET USED TO THAT. We DON'T however, intend to add a BAD PRESIDENT to that. So the slimy traitor, John Kerry, gets to stay in the Senate-probably until he's 100...

To: zonkie who wrote (554242)	3/21/2004 10:42:37 AM
From: Benchman	Respond to of 769667

According to The Washington Post Any story that leads off with that, I really am suspect of. I would be upset IF (big if) Bush deliberately lied to congress about the estimate. No doubt about it. Lying is one of the things I do not think a president should get away with. That's one of the reasons I disliked Clinton so much. The story you posted though, does not convince me that Bush lied deliberately about the bill. There is no proof there.