Bush proposes legal block on Congress spending

Yahoo! News ^ | January 31, 2004 | Yahoo! News

[dirtboy]

Please stop us before we spend again!"

Cripes, if this is what Bush thinks we need, we should replace our elected leadership with a few CPAs and call it a day.

[quantim]

Main Entry: ²veto
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ve·toed; ve·to·ing
: to refuse to admit or approve : PROHIBIT;
also : to refuse assent to (a legislative bill) so as to prevent
enactment or cause reconsideration.

[Condor51]

I like it.
And it would sure paint those opposed as reckless with OUR money.

That being said, our 'faithful' RINO's along with the traitorous demoncRATS would probably propose the 'cap' be at something ridiculously high like 25%. BUT then Dubya can pull out his 'virgin veto pen'.

NOTE: I'm NOT being disrespectful to Bush. The undeniable fact IS that his 'veto pen' IS a virgin.

[NittanyLion]

Irony, thy name is George W. Bush. The man calls for big spending entitlement upon big spending entitlement, then states that Congress is so irresponsible it needs to be restrained by force of law.

Perhaps we also need a law stating the President will veto any bill that doesn't also adhere to the same principle...

[Huck]

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law," Bush declared Saturday in his weekly radio address, ahead of the release Monday of the fiscal 2005 budget, in which the deficit is expected to hit a new record high.

You can't make this stuff up! LOL!

[ImpBill]

BTTT. This should be an interesting thread. It has all the makings of one anyway.

[Paul C. Jesup]

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law," Bush declared Saturday in his weekly radio address, ahead of the release Monday of the fiscal 2005 budget, in which the deficit is expected to hit a new record high.

Let me get this straight, after perposing 2 TRILLION dollar in government spending increases (going to Mars, Medicare and Illegal Immigrantion during the state of the Union Address), he NOW wants to talk about spending limits.

This is talking from both sides of the mouths at it's finest.

[cake_crumb]

Give 'im a line item veto.

[Owen]

Pay attention people.

GW Bush's domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP is LESS than Ronald Reagan's was in the same years of their presidencies. This is Cold Hard Incontrovertible fact.

The number . . . a percentage of GDP . . . has grown from Clinton's and evoked this explosion of flailing arms because Clinton had GDP that was artificially large due to the dotcom boom. The large denominator reduced the % number. When GW Bush encountered a 9/11 induced fall in GDP, the % number grew and looked like a big jump.

The truth is, over multiple decades, that the domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP floats along between 3 and 4%. There's not a lot of change in it. Much of this uproar is much ado about nothing.

The reason Bush has vetoed nothing is because he has a GOP congress and the GOP congress spends on Homeland Security and the war on terror as they must. He has no need to veto that. He can interdict legislation in the formative stage.

There is way too much talk of this spending thing. His numbers are SUPERIOR to Ronald Reagan's.

[kristinn]

I'm flattered that conservatives are being pandered to in this election year. Very flattered.

[cake_crumb]

You left out funding for the military. That's terrible too. And the technology we invent to go into space has a direct effect on our jobs, our economy and our personal lives. Without spending for these unnecesary programs, you wouldn't be posting on the internet.

[cake_crumb]

Should have mentioned that funding for military innovation also has a direct effect on our jobs, economy and personal lives.

[Guillermo]

Only a true Bush-bot could defend all this new entitlement and discretionary spending.

If a Democrat was doing the exact same thing, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

[NittanyLion]

GW Bush's domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP is LESS than Ronald Reagan's was in the same years of their presidencies. This is Cold Hard Incontrovertible fact.

A demonstrably false statement. A number of sources, including the CBO, show discretionary spending increases far in excess of 4% - in fact it's closer to 8%. Why would the administration promise to hold spending beneath 4% next year, if it was already lower than that this year?

[Guillermo]

And with Bush's Pill Bill, the prices of drugs are going to skyrocket, but it will help the economy, right?

[gawd]

this is election year window-dressing. where has he and his "fiscal responsability" been for the last 3 years?? Federal spending is UP 25% IN 3 YEARS.

[George W. Bush]

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law," Bush declared Saturday in his weekly radio address, ahead of the release Monday of the fiscal 2005 budget, in which the deficit is expected to hit a new record high.

Okay. I suppose the new 'spending limits' will start at $5 trillion annually.

I think his proposed budget will make a mockery of this speech.

He's trying to head off Rush and the conservative organizations and their websites. Not to mention the new conservative activist base that is forming. Not to mention The Liberty Caucus, meeting privately now to strategize on how to defeat this big-government GOP budget.

"By exercising spending discipline in Washington DC, we will reduce the deficit and meet our most basic priorities."

At least Rove hasn't lost his sense of humor.

[cake_crumb]

"The reason Bush has vetoed nothing is because he has a GOP congress and the GOP congress spends on Homeland Security and the war on terror as they must. He has no need to veto that. He can interdict legislation in the formative stage."

In addition, everyone's screaming about illegal aliens as though they're a new problem. They were "taking our jobs" during the Clinton era, but I never heard a PEEP about that from FReepers. We do not have the MONEY to track down, catch, hold, background check and deport all of them at once. It is not possible. I want 'em gone as much as everyone else, but the logistics of such an undertaking SHOULD be obvious.

Homeland Security is raising all immigration fees. Those who register here to work under President Bush's work permit program will have to PAY for it. More than they would have if they had applied right away like law abiding citizens SHOULD. This gives Homeland Security more money to cover the cost of increased security checks. THAT aids OUR security.

[petercooper]

How about a veto now and then?

STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, W!