Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

That positions the democratic presidential candidates very well... they can point to this as proof of their support for the troops and support for withdraw from Iraq, both very popular sentiments across America right now. Bush really is bringing his party down with him...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 29 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]414348[/snapback]</div>

Firstly, even a third grader can figure out the politics of this bill.

But negating the obvious implications of the bill and taking the face value of your response, are you going on record you support the current Iraqi war as currently fought? I don't. Why would you continually send money to a cause of which you have been on record as against?

Uh?, as you state above, "crucial for their survival"??? If the money is not appropriated, will the troops literally starve? Will they have to hitchhike home?

If no money is appropriated for the war, the troops will simply pull out from Iraq, and poof, the war is over.

So what if he doesn't send more money at a police action in a state where half the population would without the bat of an eye annihilate the other half simply because of religious differences.

What does patriotism have to do with either sending money or stopping the war?

Contrary to popular belief and thought, even a liberal or a Democrat can be patriotic sometimes.

Rick
#4 2006

 

2nd veto in 6 years. The 1st was stem-cell research. I hope he has enough ink in his pen.

 

There are provisions in the Constitution for overriding a veto.

So it comes down to a giant game of "Chicken".

Would Congress send a bill that Bush says he'll veto if they didn't have the votes to override?

If Bush vetoes, he takes the chance that Congress overrides him anyway and he loses face, points, presitge, power, whatever.

The Bill has more money that he asked for and contains necessary funding for Katrina relief, et al. So it's about more than supporting the troops.

It's going to get interesting.

 

Why do people keep thinking this is a republican/democrat thing.

Bush is not a republican, he does not do anything that a normal republican would do if people cared to look into it and know the difference.

What he is and does is defined as a corporatist

Wars usually boil down to money for someone.

Keep in mind there is something important in Iraq

Keep in mind that the US Military is a much cheaper to use than your own hired mercenaries.

Now tell everyone that is a republican or democrat that the others are out to get you, toss in terrorism, economic instability and a whole lot of emotion and politics...God what a mess we are in...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 29 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]414444[/snapback]</div>

I suspect that he's going to actually be using the veto power since he's dealing with a Democrat-controlled Congress instead of the rubber-stamp, Republican-controlled Congress of the first six years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 29 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]414348[/snapback]</div>

To read this at face value, I almost believe you think this way. Read it a couple more times and I'm more sure the more times I read it.

Which brings me to ask: Are you really this simple? Do you struggle with other difficult topics such as how to spell Cat?

Tell me something to show that you're not really this big of a moron.

Every day for the last 40 or 50 days, congress has been going to give a bill with money tied to a surrender date. For every retarded democrat saying this was a great bill, there has been a presidential spokesman (or the President Himself) stating that the bill will be veto'd on arrival becuase of the built in surrender date.

Mr. Moron: Is surrendering to our enemies on the war front a patriotic plan?

 

Question the troops. Most feel that they are doing a great service to the Iraq people and would like to see the USA finish it. A lot of good has been over there. The demcorats in DC are doing a great disservice to our troops by setting a withdrawal date. It tells the ememy they won, they will do whatever it takes to drag this out. Most Americans want us out, but lets do it united as a country and with a sense of accomplishment. I wish that the politics could be kept behind closed doors so that the enemy would not be encouraged. When we do leave the bombing will not stop and I am afraid that once they can have there way over their they will be coming over here. Do not forget 9/11.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom 6850 @ Apr 30 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]432709[/snapback]</div>

From one of the Navy's own who has seen his friends get sent over, I thank you. We don't need to pull out. We need to finish up and that's that. Set dates for the Iraqi military to begin taking over (which, to an extent, is in progress, because the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force have been providing training to the Iraqi military. So, let's finish up and get out.

And, as far as signing a bill tied to a surrender date, only a foolish man would sign that. I don't want my Commander-in-Chief to sign any funding bills that call for us to leave. This hearkens to the sound of Vietnam - we know what happened when we gave up and walked away. (Although I think it was much needed, especially since it had developed into stalemate when we withdrew)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom 6850 @ Apr 30 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]432709[/snapback]</div>

I'm curious: Do you think, 100 years from now, 'remember 9/11' will be up there with 'remember Pearl Harbor,' or will it be more like, 'remember the Maine'?

You remember the Maine, don't you?

 

You mean this one?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Apr 30 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]432720[/snapback]</div>

You had to look it up?

Yes; of course **that** one.

---------------

Q.E.D.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 29 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]414348[/snapback]</div>

you were baiting Catholics before and now you are on to the President and the War On Terror. I for one think he has done as good a job as possible. I have not buried any more of my fellow New Yorkers - friends, neighbors and patients - since this battle was brought to US by them. I know it is a simple way to guage things but for me it is a good sign.

I do not want my CIC declaring defeat, aiding and abetting the enemy (like harry reid), or doing anything that will in any way increase the amount of danger American troops face.

if the dhimmocrats want to support our troops they can send a pure spending bill to the President or if they want to make political hay AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR SOLDIERS they can wait for some anniversary date to send this dead on arrival bill. Or perhaps if the dhimmocrats has any gonads they would just stop funding the war all together like harry "the war is lost" reid wants to do. the thought that the dhimmocrats care about US troops (notice US troops and not their troops because the dems have been anti-US troops since vietnam) is sickening - our troops would be better off if the dhimmocrats stopped caring about them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 29 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]414468[/snapback]</div>

Keep in mind that if the President vetoes this bill, the funding essentially stops. Congress is under no obligation to keep passing bills until the President gets one he likes. In this case, Congress controls the purse strings, and Bush can't really do anything about it. Let's make that clear... the only way to get the funding Bush needs to keep this war going is for him to find some sort of compromise with Congress. Doing this will take some concessions on the part of the Bush administration.

Does that mean timelines? Congress seems pretty set on having some sort of defined benchmark system that the administration and the Iraqi government have to meet... I don't think that is a negotiable point.

Personally, I'd like to see Congress pass a bill allowing funding for the troops without a timeline, but offsetting it with taxes. Goes something like this: For the first two months of funding, incomes over $500,000 would have their taxes raised 1%. Each month after that, taxes on that group will go up .5% until such time as the troops are pulled out. If Bush pulls half the troops out, we could consider making that .25% monthly instead. Doing this would generate revenue to offset the cost of the war, which is badly needed. It would also put the burden of funding the war on those who traditionally support the Republican party monetarily. I'd even consider taking that tax off of individuals and putting it on certain classes of industry, such as oil companies. Personally, I don't think Bush would be so interested in pursuing this war if he actually has to pay for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 30 2007, 03:44 PM) [snapback]432717[/snapback]</div>

Yes I do I remember the Maine, although I am not guite that old. I can't believe you could make a statement like that. I hope and pray no American never forgets 9/11, we can't afford to forget it. It will be remembered more than Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, the Lusitannia, Pearl Harbor, and so many more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Apr 30 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]432782[/snapback]</div>

Why not incomes over $22,000?

Don't want this to impact you directly? That's a very liber

Figure out what the median income is, then divide by 2 and start taxing at that level. Let's see how popular this congress is when we do that for a few months.. Oh yeah, we don't want to do anything to detract from the spectacular work the congress is doing.

Congress knows how to fund the troops. If they don't do it, the people are going to hear about it and find out how worthless a democrat controlled congress really is. A tax hike of any kind would be a great move by them if they want a republican president in 2008.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 30 2007, 04:42 PM) [snapback]432760[/snapback]</div>

You know, it's been so long since I thought about it that I needed to do some digging about the way it related. And besides, I was trying to keep the thread lighthearted...sort of.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 30 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]432830[/snapback]</div>

I dare say those in the $22,000 a year income bracket are supporting the war more in troops (sons, husbands, fathers, daughers, wives, mothers) than those in the $500,000 bracket. So those in the $500,000 can support with their money where they lack in body count.