[wolfcreek]

How much of this spending is due to the war and disaster relief?

[goldstategop]

Exactly. I don't think this President would exercise the item-line veto when he has never vetoed a regular spending bill. Its like an overweight person who drinks cola trying to pretend he'll trim off some flab by drinking diet cola. Radical surgery on big government, it ain't.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Kakaze]

This isn't a true veto power anyway, just feel good, sound bite legislation, in a election year.

The previous bill was struck down by supreme court because it ( paraphase) "Seeded legislative power from congress to the executive branch. It required a 2/3 rds vote to overturn the veto".

This bill only requires a simple majority and is worded as ( paraphrase) "The president effectively asks the congress if they meant to pass that section of the bill". So its toothless unless the msm raises a fuss over it.

It's also kind of insulting as it truly pertains to the fact that most of these so called "legislators" never read a damn thing they vote for.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I oppose the line-item veto because it doesn't address the need for long-term, structural decreases in government spending. All it does is let politicians beat their chests, smile at the cameras, and proudly declare that they're doing something about wasteful spending.

[MNJohnnie]

Squeal like pigs because the Feds do nothing about spending. Squeal like pigs when the Feds do something about spending. Seems for the Freeper Fringers the only thing they want to do is bitch, bitch, bitch and bitch.