Buh bye troll.
Posted on 11/22/2004 7:51:24 AM PST by 9999lakes
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Saturday passed a $388 billion package financing government programs in this fiscal year after days of tough talks, but a last minute snag means it may not be sent to President Bush for signing into law for several days. The Senate voted 65-30 for the legislation late on Saturday that sets aside funds for a range of priorities including a presidential yacht, foreign aid and energy. It is one of the final pieces of work for the 108th Congress and they may return to finish a spy agency overhaul before the end of the year. The House of Representatives passed the bill 344-51 earlier on Saturday. But it must also approve a resolution that would correct part of the spending bill that would have allowed lawmakers access to the tax returns of Americans and which provoked outrage among lawmakers from both parties....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6875356
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The left doesn't seem to have caught wind of this yet, but they will, and this will be a symbol for them to rally behind for years -- decades!
And rightly so.
I see no mention of a yacht in the information you posted. Gotta snip?
This is FAKE!!!!! The want to buy the historic presidential yacht SEQUIOA back. for 2, yes TWO million dollars. The yacht was used by Rooseveldt and sold by Carter. They now want to buy it back and give it to the NAVY MUSEUM.
i say buy him two yachts. one for the atlantic and one got the golf of mexico.
Like President Hilary would forego use of the yacht. The libs will keep quiet about it, so they can use it when then come to power.
it's SEQUOIA.
Are the funds to buy a new yacht or for repairs to the existing one? I believe there has been a Presidential yacht since the Roosevelt Administration. Some have used it, others have not.
Never accept anything Reuters says on face value. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the Sequoia, which was the Presidential Yacht for many decades.
How dare you bring actual facts into this thread!
Buh bye troll.
I think that there was a presidential yacht up through Reagan's time. It's the president's, not President Bush's and it's there for entertaining world leaders. I don't see it as a huge problem. Back when the dems were trying to jack up taxes on everything, they jacked them up on luxury items like yachts and guess what, they only hurt the blue collar people who build them. I would like to know if some legislator who has yachts built in his/her district slipped it in.
I'd rather them build a yacht and give future presidents a swank boat then piss it away at the UN or with the PA. Maybe it'll be armed ... a little OTO 3" and Stinger love'n x^D
Actually, I'd rather just keep my bloody money.
Yep, I believe I've read about a Presidential yacht in a Jack Higgins' book. ;-)
The Presidents lake, at Crawford, won't hold a very big boat, just large enough for Barney and Dubya to do a little bass fishing.
Oh Heck, to the victor go the spoils! Ha, I kill me: ALF
Salvaging History, Besides why not a Yacht! Better than a Camel, definetly smells better!
Try reading the second sentence.
If so, it's probably cheaper in the long run than spending millions in security every time a large meeting occurs.
Surely it's not strictly for pleasure cruising. Now Kerry would have demanded that, but I can't picture Bush doing it.
Dang, can I blame that on my contact lenses fogging up this morning? ;-)
Please do not change headlines.
There has been a presidential yacht for at least a century if I am not mistaken.. its not used much anymore since Air travel is now the way of most... but FDR and others met dignitaries on the Presidential Yacht for decades.
And rightly so.
Buying back the Presidential "yacht" used by FDR and heavily by JFK from its current owner will give the left something to rally behind to attack republicans with? How so?
And I wouldn't exactly call it a Yacht, but more of a cruising boat.
Screw that. I say give him a swiftboat and let him rip up and down the Potomac just to piss Kerry off.
I was on Sequoia once, when stationed around DC. Impressive and they sold it two weeks later. Always felt lucky I saw it.
It's a lot of money, but presidential historians go nuts over this kind of stuff.
I hate it when that happens. :-)
Ah! LOL. Good one.
Sighs...as was mentioned by others- the government is trying to buy back the former presidential yacht "Sequoia"
But leave it to Reuter's to let the phrase "presidential yacht" just hang there...
Have DUmmies had a yacht-gasm over this yet?
I really really like your swiftboat idea but don't leave out Boston Harbor
'The House of Representatives passed the bill 344-51 earlier on Saturday. But it must also approve a resolution that would correct part of the spending bill that would have allowed lawmakers access to the tax returns of Americans and which provoked outrage among lawmakers from both parties.'
what's this about 'lawmakers access to the tax returns of Americans '?????????
Don't like THAT idea one bit - sKerry idea...
Then you've not seen the ending of "Secondhand Lions".
I am sorry.
Calling me a troll just will not do.
There has been no stronger supporter of the President than me either on or off this site.
But if this is true, it is simply wrong.
More than that it is incredibly short-sighted and dumb.
This will become a rallying cry for libs for years.
This will become a proverb in politics as much as "welfare-queen" and "$400 hammers" was for President Reagan.
$388 million isn't that much I suppose in a budget of billions.
But as a symbol this is devastating beyond measure.
And any conservative who supports it, just doesn't get it.
Thanks for the link
"he bill also included a measure to make Mexican trucks operating in the United States safer. "
Here's an idea save the money, send their trucks and them back home to Foxy Fox.
And end NAFTA.
Cut the deficit in half, get rid of illegals.
Why?
And why would the left go crazy over it and use it as a weapon against the republicans when it was their kings FDR, Truman, and JFK that were the heaviest users of the Sequioa?
JFK even had it modified to allow for easy access to his women and the ability to hide their presence from others on board.
Just inserting this in. Marine 1 is being replaced by new helicopters. Good idea I think. The old ones look like they were in use during the Revolutionary War.
This yacht has been used by many Presidents, from Hoover to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Nixon. All they're doing it is buying it back from the private owners (it has changed hands several times) and donating it for the naval museum.
You're making a much bigger deal out of this than anyone else would.
Wearing a sweater in the Oval Office to give the impression turning down the White House thermostat would conserve electricity was another. With Democrats, it's always symbolism over substance. (They think voters are so stupid!) Can you even imagine President Bush speaking to the American people from the Oval Office without a coat and tie? (Remember Clinton there, not only getting serviced by Monica, but bringing in runners, all sweating, in running shorts and sneakers.)
President Bush would never sell a piece of our history for political advantage. When he said he was restoring honor and dignity to the office, it meant more than just personal behavior. He really does respect the traditions of the office.
While President Bush probably had no knowledge or no involvement in buying back The Sequoia, I have no doubt he would support it.
correction.... the cost of the yacht is not $388 million.
Actually much less.
But as a symbol that America is going to hate -- it is worth billions to the left.
Is it too late to delete this from the spending bill?
Further on the purchase of historic Presidential items. The Desk used by JFK to sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty went to auction and many said it should be purchased by the government as a historic item of importance. But it was bought by a private bidder. Would it also be wrong for the government to purchase this item off the owner and would the left have an item to rally around for decades to come?
You're being rediculous. Are you willfully ignoring the posts of better-informed Freepers who replied on this thread?
[i]This yacht has been used by many Presidents, from Hoover to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Nixon. All they're doing it is buying it back from the private owners (it has changed hands several times) and donating it for the naval museum.
You're making a much bigger deal out of this than anyone else would.[/i]
You think.
Wait and see!
Remember the idiot who took the photos at Abu Gharib.
This is stupider than that.
Have you gotten it through your skull yet that the President is NOT being bought a yacht?
This is especially for you. From the LA Times:
November 21, 2004 E-mail story Print
THE NATION
Spending Bill Gets Approval
Congress passes a $388-billion measure that cuts funding for nondefense programs and curbs some White House initiatives.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Congress, in one of its final acts of the year, on Saturday approved a massive spending bill that tightened the government's purse strings in response to a burgeoning federal budget deficit.
The House approved the $388-billion measure, then the Senate followed suit in a postelection push to wind up the business of the lame-duck 108th Congress.
President Bush was expected to sign the bill. Although it curbed a number of White House initiatives, it fulfilled Bush's goal of clamping down on nondefense spending in the face of a record deficit and mounting costs for U.S. military operations in Iraq.
Final approval appeared in doubt at one point as abortion rights advocates objected to a provision making it easier for healthcare organizations to refuse to provide abortions and related services. But they acquiesced after House leaders promised a separate vote on the provision next year.
Lawmakers said the bill marked a more determined effort to restore fiscal discipline following several years of tax cutting and deficit spending. Excluding funding for defense and foreign aid, funding for domestic programs in the bill grew only 1% from last year.
The House passed the measure on a 344-51 vote; the Senate 65 to 30.
"This is a lean and clean package that adheres to the budgetary limits agreed to by the Congress and the president," said Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "We have resisted many requests for additions to the package that would have busted the budget by billions of dollars."
The spending bill was supposed to be the last piece of business for the 108th Congress. But the House is now expected to come back into session next week to deal with a provision that ran into Senate opposition after House members had already voted and headed home.
Democrats contended the provision could undermine the privacy of income tax returns. Republican leaders said they never intended such a thing and promptly won Senate passage of a measure striking the language. Senate Republican leaders agreed to hold off sending the spending bill to the president until the House acted to remove the language dealing with tax returns.
Another issue is standing in the way of final adjournment: Lawmakers are holding out hope for an agreement on legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence-gathering system after a compromise proposal was blocked by key House Republicans on Saturday.
The omnibus spending bill drew objections from lawmakers favoring abortion rights because of a provision added to the measure that would limit the ability of federal, state and local governments to require hospitals and health maintenance organizations to provide abortion services or referrals.
"When the women in America find out what is happening here, there is going to be a great outrage," said Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
Supporters of the provision said it was necessary to protect healthcare organizations that opposed abortion from being forced to offer the procedure. But opponents characterized the provision as a "gag rule."
Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Petaluma) assailed the measure as "nothing more than a payoff to the religious right." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) called it "an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) threatened to stage a filibuster over the provision but relented after receiving a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to schedule a vote early next year on the provision.
However, such a vote will probably be merely symbolic since a repeal measure is unlikely to pass the House.
Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who sought the provision, said it was intended to protect healthcare and insurance providers "from being forced by the government to provide, refer or pay for abortions."
The provision would bar federal funding to any government agency that "subjects any institutional or individual healthcare entity to discrimination on the basis that the healthcare entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions."
The antiabortion provision was regarded as one of the first signs of the clout that conservatives expected to gain from the Nov. 2 elections after increasing the GOP majorities in the House and Senate.
The provision was among a number of special causes and pet projects crammed into the must-pass measure completed just hours before it came before the House and Senate.
Some lawmakers said the bill didn't go far enough to cut spending.
!!!!!!!!!!!
The bill, for example, provides up to $2 million to buy a former presidential yacht for a Navy museum and $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville.
!!!!!!!!!!!
The bill will fund much of the federal government for the 2005 fiscal year that began Oct. 1. It takes the place of nine separate bills that Congress normally passes to fund departments, such as Education, Labor, Interior, Commerce, Justice, State, and Health and Human Services, as well as dozens of other federal agencies.
Critics of the 1,000-page bill said it was unlikely that lawmakers read it before voting.
"There are things in here that almost nobody knows about," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
Congressional appropriators said they were forcing Bush to share in the belt-tightening. The bill provides less than the president sought for a signature program to promote economic and political reforms by developing countries, an arts initiative championed by First Lady Laura Bush, and programs to promote sexual abstinence, develop lower-polluting coal-fired plants and help ex-offenders find and keep jobs.
No additional money was provided for a Bush effort to underwrite further research on a "bunker-buster" nuclear weapon designed to burrow underground and destroy targets, a program that critics say runs contrary to U.S. efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation.
But lawmakers, eager to avoid a confrontation with the president that might force him to cast his first veto, dropped a number of controversial measures that the White House opposed. Bush administration rules that critics said would have denied overtime pay to millions of workers and another one making it harder to travel to Cuba survived.
Democrats complained that the bill shortchanged their priorities, providing less than a 2% increase for education and slashing funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, especially for water quality projects.
Still, many Democrats said they voted for the bill because the only alternative was continuing to fund much of the government at last year's even lower levels.
"This bill doesn't even come close to accomplishing what our constituents expect from this Congress," said Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas). "Perhaps while Republicans are enjoying their Thanksgiving vacation, they will take a moment to give thanks that they don't have to face the electorate for two more years."
The bill addressed high-profile public concerns, such as providing $100 million to help ensure that an adequate supply of flu vaccine would be available in the future, and creating a National Gang Intelligence Center in the Justice Department to fight gang-related crime.
Of importance to California and other border states, the bill provides $305 million nationwide to reimburse states for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants convicted of crimes. Bush proposed providing no money, but border-state lawmakers from both parties argued that the federal government should allow the reimbursements because it was responsible for controlling the borders.
Among California projects: $1 million is applied toward construction of an additional lane to the off-ramp of the northbound Ventura Freeway at Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley to help ease congestion.
The partisan wrangling that has characterized this congressional session continued up until the end.
When Democrats continued to complain about the provision dealing with income tax returns, even after Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) called the language a mistake and pledged to strike it, Stevens grew angry. "Isn't that enough?" he said, pounding the table repeating his pledge to strike the language. "Do I have to get down on my knees and beg the other side?"
While lawmakers called the spending measure austere, Keith Ashdown, who monitors Congress for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, called the bill the "fattest legislative hog that we have ever seen…. If this bill is an indicator of what's to come, we will be swimming up a river of red ink for quite some time."
Wait and see!
Remember the idiot who took the photos at Abu Gharib.
This is stupider than that.
Purchasing a true piece of American Presidential History from its current owner for preservation and display is stupider than Abu Gharib photos?
You sir are delusional.
And since this is going to be a rallying point for the left to bludgeon republicans with, I look forward to you pinging me to your posts of comments by liberal members of congress doing just that on this matter.
I won't be holding my breath.
"Ignoring the posts of better informed Freepers", am I?
OK.
I'm done.
No more posts from me on this.
At least not until this blows up in our faces.
As I stated above, please ping me when you post threads with the lefts outrage over this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.