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: JDN who wrote (707274)	10/13/2005 4:11:40 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The President has his party in charge of both houses of Congress. If he sees something he does not like in a bill...something tagged on that is pork and wasteful, which bloats the bill or deters from its original intent, he may not have a line item veto but he should have enough arm-twisting authority to let the leaders know he won't sign it unless it is cleaned up. If they don't get that message, a veto with specific reasons why and an education through the bully pulpit about what he is trying to accomplish with the veto (and opening the door to reconsideration after resubmission in a "neater" form) would work wonders. The republicans told all of us that if we entrusted them with the executive and the legislative branches they could keep a tidy house. Not so. If Mr. Bush vetoed one spending bill, one, with the message that more would follow if congress did not provide its own discipline, it would have a great impact on the legislators. If they have no fear of having to justify pork, it is just too easy to hide it and push it through.

To: JDN who wrote (707274)	10/13/2005 5:57:12 PM
From: BEEF JERKEY	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"we need to require citizens to be responsible to the Country not to their selfish self" Responsible government would be a start. The Republican Party plays a cynical game of pushing for politically popular tax cuts that the country simply cannot afford. Look either you want your roads paved and a well equipped military or you want tax cuts. A war is totally out of the question. The twin deficits will to the country great harm economically - its just a question of when - I hope Bush and (deficits don't matter)Cheney hasn't vamoosed before the chickens come home to roost.

To: JDN who wrote (707274)	10/13/2005 10:48:28 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

We used to have a line item veto, sort of. It was called Aministrative Impoundment. The Chief Executive would decline to spend money that had been approved in the budget. A democrat dominated Congress rammed through laws preventing that during the mid seventies.

To: JDN who wrote (707274)	10/14/2005 11:36:12 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"Its not that simple, a Balanced Budget Amendment would only result in raising taxes or reducing our defense or both." PROVE IT. (Don't wimp out on fiscal conservatism now. Whining like that is what keeps us in deficit administration after administration, Congress after Congress, REGARDLESS of which ever Party is in charge. There is NOTHING in the Balanced Budget amendment that says raising taxes is the only way to cut the deficit.) A Balanced Budget amendment would REQUIRE a balanced budget... then all you'd have to do would be vote for people who don't want to raise taxes... and you'd wind up with reductions in spending, pork, corporate welfare, simplifications to the tax system, etc. Because there would be NO OTHER choice. "The problem is THE SYSTEM. At a MINIMUM we need line item veto, in a perfect world," Well... it obviously isn't a 'perfect world', so you have to deal with the world we have. The Supreme Court has already RULED that you'd need to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION to give the Executive branch line item veto power over budget items --- and they were correct: the Constitution reserves budgetary power for the Legislative branch. (So don't count on some mythical 'new' members on the Supreme Court to over-rule this decision: the CONSERVATIVES were correct to rule as they did, they would have to ignore the Constitution to rule otherwise.) So, if you want line item veto... you have to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ANYWAY. I'm fine with that... but why stop there with a minor change that might or might not reduce the deficits? Why not go straight away for something that GUARANTEES the annual deficits will be done away with? (I'm OK with passing BOTH amendments if you want to... but for God's sake, go with the big gun, not just the peashooter.)