Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Bush Vetoes Spending Bill

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Bush Vetoes Spending Bill

    [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/URL]



    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: November 13, 2007
    Filed at 11:15 a.m. ET

    NEW ALBANY, Ind. (AP) -- President Bush, escalating his budget battle with Congress, on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

    He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget although the White House complained it contained ''some unnecessary spending.''

    The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to New Albany, Ind., on the Ohio River across from Louisville, Ky., for a speech criticizing the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.

    In excerpts of his remarks released in advance by the White House, Bush hammered Democrats for what he called a tax-and-spend philosophy:

    ''The Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy,'' Bush said. ''Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card.

    ''This year alone, leaders in Congress are proposing to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides,'' the president said. ''Some of them claim this is not really much of a difference and the scary part is that they seem to mean it.''

    More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

    Rep. David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pounced immediately on Bush's veto.

    ''This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans,'' Obey said. ''There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics.''

    Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year's bill.

    Democrats responded by adding $10 billion to Bush's request for the 2008 bill. Democrats say spending increases for domestic programs are small compared with Bush's pending war request totaling almost $200 billion.

    The $471 billion defense budget gives the Pentagon a 9 percent, $40 billion budget increase. The measure only funds core department operations, omitting Bush's $196 billion request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for an almost $12 billion infusion for new troop vehicles that are resistant to roadside bombs.

    Much of the increase in the defense bill is devoted to procuring new and expensive weapons systems, including $6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

    Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;2208266][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/URL]



    Bush said. ''Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card.
    [/QUOTE]

    I think that is just a funny quote right there.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Better late than never, Bushie. He’s suddenly waking up to the fact that you shouldn’t spend like a drunken sailor – even though he did it for 7 years.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]Better late than never, Bushie. He’s suddenly waking up to the fact that you shouldn’t spend like a drunken sailor – even though he did it for 7 years.[/QUOTE]

    You take this as a sign of "waking up?" If this bill was passed by a Republican led Congress, he wouldn't think twice about signing off on it. This isn't "waking up," this is pure politics.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208407]You take this as a sign of "waking up?" If this bill was passed by a Republican led Congress, he wouldn't think twice about signing off on it. This isn't "waking up," this is pure politics.[/QUOTE]

    This is exactly why we should elect a Republican President. The pure politics of Congress and the President acting as a check and balance on each other is bound to reduce spending.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2208431]This is exactly why we should elect a Republican President. The pure politics of Congress and the President acting as a check and balance on each other is bound to reduce spending.[/QUOTE]

    And voting in a Democratic President will get us out of the quagmire known as Iraq, which is also bound to reduce spending.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208533]And voting in a Democratic President will get us out of the quagmire known as Iraq, which is also bound to reduce spending.[/QUOTE]

    If the Dems wanted to end the war they could have done it by now.
    Fact is they don't want to end the war for their own political agenda, the problem is the Presidents new team is actually getting results ahead of the election. Looks like the hypocritical stradegy of keeping the war funded until the Presidential election may back fire on the Dems? If that happens the Dems may be in a box to unwind things slower than what the current administration has already put in place. It's not a quagmire unless it's a quagmire, the past is history, you aren't keeping up.

  8. #8
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [quote=parafly;2208533]And voting in a Democratic President will get us out of the quagmire known as Iraq, which is also bound to reduce spending.[/quote]

    pt barnum was right

    guess you didnt see rangel's, i mean hillary's tax plan
    all those taxes cover the deficit and then some

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2208645]If the Dems wanted to end the war they could have done it by now.
    Fact is they don't want to end the war for their own political agenda, the problem is the Presidents new team is actually getting results ahead of the election. Looks like the hypocritical stradegy of keeping the war funded until the Presidential election may back fire on the Dems? If that happens the Dems may be in a box to unwind things slower than what the current administration has already put in place. It's not a quagmire unless it's a quagmire, the past is history, you aren't keeping up.[/QUOTE]

    It remains to be seen whether the recent drop in roadside bombs is a flash in the pan or a more permanent state. The country is still very unstable, and things can turn quickly under certain circumstances.

    I agree that keeping the war going to use as an election tool may backfire on the Dems, but it's too early to say that with any certainty. We are still in a difficult position with no easy way out, hence quagmire.

    All of this is besides the point. The Iraq War continues to be funded heavily, and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight. With a Republican President, war spending will probably not decrease, and may actually increase once Iran is brought into the picture.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2208662]pt barnum was right

    guess you didnt see rangel's, i mean hillary's tax plan
    all those taxes cover the deficit and then some[/QUOTE]

    Not a big fan of Hillary or any of the Dems to be honest. But if the competition is Rudy, I won't have much of a choice.

    If I had to choose between big spending domestically or big spending on wars in the Middle East, I pick domestically without a doubt.

  11. #11
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    765
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208684]Not a big fan of Hillary or any of the Dems to be honest. But if the competition is Rudy, I won't have much of a choice.

    If I had to choose between big spending domestically or big spending on wars in the Middle East, I pick domestically without a doubt.[/QUOTE]
    Why?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kaol;2208689]Why?[/QUOTE]

    America 1st, 2nd, and 3rd...Everything else follows.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kaol;2208689]Why?[/QUOTE]

    Probably because he feels wasting money on Americans is better than wasting our money on a bunch of towelheaded camel jockeys whose kids are probably gonna blow up our kids...

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208675]

    It remains to be seen whether the recent drop in roadside bombs is a flash in the pan or a more permanent state. The country is still very unstable, and things can turn quickly under certain circumstances.

    I agree that keeping the war going to use as an election tool may backfire on the Dems, but it's too early to say that with any certainty. We are still in a difficult position with no easy way out, hence quagmire.

    All of this is besides the point. The Iraq War continues to be funded heavily, and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight. With a Republican President, war spending will probably not decrease, and may actually increase once Iran is brought into the picture.[/QUOTE]


    If you believe the Democrats will allow Iran to have Nukes than I guess that's another good reason to vote Republican.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2208662]pt barnum was right

    guess you didnt see rangel's, i mean hillary's tax plan
    all those taxes cover the deficit and then some[/QUOTE]

    The Dems have to fix the AMT because they originally passed it in to soak the rich but now that it's soaking the middle class they have to come up with another way to soak the rich ;)

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    2,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    All politicians are scvmbags and only care about self preservation. Dems and Repubs are both horrible. Compromise is history in this counrty, and they all act like a bunch of 6 yr olds.

    9/11 they knocked down the WTC's. 9/12 we should have turned that place to glass. Problem solved.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2208694]If you believe the Democrats will allow Iran to have Nukes than I guess that's another good reason to vote Republican.[/QUOTE]

    Iran will not be allowed to have nukes regardless of which party controls the Presidency. I believe that a Democrat would be more responsible fiscally and tactically in making that a reality.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208722]Iran will not be allowed to have nukes regardless of which party controls the Presidency. I believe that a Democrat would be more responsible fiscally and tactically in making that a reality.[/QUOTE]

    Based on what? Pulling our troops out of Iraq? Another incompetent Secretary of State like Albright or Christopher? The last competent Statesman was Baker and the last good one was Shultz both under Republicans.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2208738]Based on what? Pulling our troops out of Iraq? Another incompetent Secretary of State like Albright or Christopher? The last competent Statesman was Baker and the last good one was Shultz both under Republicans.[/QUOTE]

    Based on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the sabre rattling coming from the Republicans.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;2208767]Based on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the sabre rattling coming from the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

    Since the Dems took over Congress Bush has installed an excellent Secretary of defense and made an excellent choice for Attorney General. He is vetoing pork filled spending for the first time. The war is being managed properly on the ground. The administration today is far more competent today simple because of over sight.

    The reality is if a Dem is elected they will be in the same position Bush was in when he was elected having a Republican Congress. Patronage will rule the day and money will be doled out like candy. We have a terribly corrupt system and without the check of divided government the idea that the Democrats will be more responsible than the Republicans when they control the entire government is absurd. The Democrats will spend us into oblivion and at the same time destroy our military if they contol Congress and the Presidency.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us