Posted on 09/25/2005 10:56:29 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
You might want to brush up on the constitution if that is what you believe. The president has veto power over legislation submitted by the congress. The congress can override the veto with a super majority but Bush hasn't even tried to veto anything.
It is highly unlikely that congress would have overridden any veto as they certainly didn't with Clinton. If pork barrel spending truly offended Bush then he would have vetoed the bills and asked congress to resubmit them without the pork.
Heck, Bush wouldn't even have to let it get that far. He could even threaten congress with a veto while they are formulating the legislation. Clinton and Reagan did that all the time and it's very effective.
This also ignores that fact that Bush has actually pushed for a lot of the "socialist" spending by the congress.
He sounds like a Democrat politician in the making.
Bush has been feckless. Don't kill the messenger.
More like tossing bones to keep them at bay while progress is being made.
And it has been made!
Why would he need to throw members of his own party a bone?
Regardless, what progress has been made? It is not clear how expanding entitlements and actually creating new ones can be construed as "progress."
Ya don't suppose "agenda" is at the core of his article do you?
Sulivan is certainly no friend of socialism.
Fair enough.
'nuff said.
As always "single point" people with their agenda get lost in the forest and lose sight of the overall progression achieved.
Can you provide a run down on some of the progress made on domestic issues?
Then who or what is he a friend of?
I'd suggest that a number of them need to be replaced.
Where I vote, we're pretty much stuck with either picking the better of the 'Rats seeking the nomination or the 'Rat more/most likely to lose to a alternative party candidate. The 'Rat primary is essentially the election these days (just like in Alabama in the 50's and 60's).
Maybe you ought to wake up. Yes, he can veto and they can over rule him. The elected legislature is you worst enemy not the executive branch. The President, you pick him from George Washington to George Bush had the same problem. SHOV OFF MISTER!
Anyone who endorsed Kerry, as Sullivan did, is not worth listening to on any issue.
Andrew is a sadly confused man. I read his website daily for at least two years after 9/11. Now I read it rarely.
He's become almost a full-time Bush-basher, and that just isn't interesting, especially when the bashing generally comes from the left.
While Andrew's fiscal conservatism may be genuine, he's a fool if he thinks Kerry would have been an improvement over Bush, even on that score.
Huh? I already pointed out that vetoes can be overridden but that the situation would be highly unlikely.
Regardless, why hasn't he tried? Why hasn't he threatened to not sign legislation into law unless it was fiscally responsible? Why hasn't he at least tried a veto? Why has Bush called for (and received) more and more entitlements and international spending?
I think what Jeff is trying to say is: every debt comes due, eventually. And there is a whopper of a debt on our horizon.
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it"
So, if the President approves of a bill, he signs it. As the current President has signed every single bill placed before him, it is not inappropriate to conclude that he approved of them all, and to criticise on the basis.
Your saying that 'he can veto and they can over rule him' as if that absolves him from any responsibility is absurd. He hasn't attempted to do so.
Thank you.
Deficit spending is almost always a bad thing to do. There are exceptions such as for a military action, but military spending is not what is busting this budget - new entitlements are.
With the military action in Afghanistan, it was a perfect time to clear out the fat in the federal budget, but instead the GOP actually created new entitlements.
True. "Capitalist" also, and others.
I do think that the Bush administration is of the ilk to which I refer as "faux socialist." That is to say that they implement and support many policies and agendas that are essentially socialist, but only because it serves their petty interests.
Right now, W and crew are global Marxists, redistributing wealth from the American poor to the Mexican middle class. But they only do that because it is financially profitable to them in the immediate sense, and I believe they perceive a megatrend that they hope will be politically profitable to them in the long run.
Wake up guys and learn who your real enemies are, the LEGISTLATURE. America doesn't have a king it has a President.
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.