HOUSE - WHITE HOUSE TEAM UP AGAINST SENATE TO CONTROL SPENDING

House Policy Committee ^ | June 28, 2002

[RAT Patrol]

This is a good start anyway.

[AAABEST]

So really, it doesn't matter to you whether they spend or save. You just like to bitch. What a life!

Read with comprehension .... child. My problem isn't with saving money, that's always a good thing. I just find it facinating that all of a sudden everyone in Washington is passing a bowling ball over 6 billion , yet while they were gayly blowing hundreds of billions there wasn't a peep.

I stated this clearly in my original post but obviously I have to repeat myself, like someone who's teaching a parrot to talk.

[AAABEST]

This is a good start anyway.

Can't argue with you there bud.

That said, these guys can spend 6 bil an hour so my optimism is guarded.

[Linda Liberty]

It's ugly, and messy, but that's how you have to play the game. Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections.

I have real trouble believing you're serious here. This letter is about $4 billion in overspending on the supplemental bill, on the same day that the house voted $330 billion, that they admit to, on drug benefits, which figure is more than Al Gore promised last Fall. The farm bill was, I forget, 100 billion or some such? And on and on.

Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.When the republicans are out of power, at least they fight for smaller spending. When they are in power, they propose more spending because they want credit for the goodies just like the dems do. I can't see why you care if "our guys" win elections if they behave the way they do.

[Sir Gawain]

You know you've hit the big time when you have forum stalkers.

[Bill Davis FR]

who said the president will use the veto pen?

[AAABEST]

You know you've hit the big time when you have forum stalkers.

LOL, you should see some of the FReepmail I get. I'd get a restraining order but I wouldn't even want the mo-mos amongst us disarmed.

This one and a couple of others repeatedly pop up with their silly one liners (that usually have nothing to do with the debate) and buzz around my head doing their best imitation of horses*** flies.

[hchutch]

Because I consider tax cuts, judicial nominations, and foreign policy/national security to be much more important at this point in time. They also happen to be issues that we do much better at with the American people.

Kindly explain to me how we will keep liberal activists like the two who voted down the Pledge of Allegiance off the bench. George W. Bush has promised to find and appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas to the federal courts. If the Dems win, then they will put folks like those that occupy most of the seats Ninth Circuit in other circuits, and then we will be ROYALLY screwed.

The courts and foreign policy/national security (particularly the war) are the first priority. We should deal with other issues LATER.

I am VERY serious here. We got a gutted national security establishment with eight years of Clinton. We cannot afford to lose elections, not with this war, and not with the judicial nominations at stake.

[Linda Liberty]

Kindly explain to me how we will keep liberal activists like the two who voted down the Pledge of Allegiance off the bench.

FYI, the guy who wrote the pledge decision is a Republican, appointed by none other than Richard Milhouse Nixon.

[hchutch]

And he was pulled from Senior Judge status because Daschle and Leahy are blocking Bush's appointments.

The two vacancies would not make that big a difference. Of the 26 judges currently sitting, 20 are Carter or Clinton niminees. But if we get good guys in the last two spots on that bench, and put more Scalia or Thomas-type judges in when Clinton and Carter judges retire, we might have less of these BS rulings.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

"Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections"

FINALLY.. someone "gets it"!! Thanks for a succinct well stated reply!!

[Linda Liberty]

Your assumption is that Bush will make good appointments if Republicans are elected. But the fact that Nixon appointed this guy, and Bush Sr. appted Souter, shows that Republican Presidents are pretty near as capable of appointing assholes as Democrats, just as Republicans in Congress are about as likely to overspend as democrats. Also, one of the two apptments to fill the vacancies on the 9th court was actually recommended by Judicial Committee, and is being held up by yet another Republican, the worthy John McCain.

Tell me again why I should care if Republicans are elected? And even more to the point, why I should cheer when a bunch of Pubbies try to save face with a meaningless letter like this one?

If you are outraged by the pledge decision and want to make a difference, follow Farah's advice and pull your kids out of school. That kind of action would make a real difference. Cheering on the latest pubbie BS will only encourage them to behave even worse in the future than in the past.

[sinkspur]

Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.

You may be serious, but I'm laughing anyway at the cluelessness of the above statement.

[sinkspur]

Tell me again why I should care if Republicans are elected?

Who cares if you care? You think Gore is a spendthrift.

[Linda Liberty]

Me:Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.

you: You may be serious, but I'm laughing anyway at the cluelessness of the above statement.

What's clueless about it? Spending has gone up faster since Bush than under Clinton. Today the House voted a drug benefit bill bigger than Al Gore promised.

Also, over the past boom spending rose faster in states controlled by republicans than in states controlled by democrats.

With pubbies in control, they propose a big bill hoping to get credit from their special interest friends, and the democrats negotiate it bigger. Nobody negotiates smaller. With dems in control, the pubbies fight for smaller spending. When the pubbies are out, they have a lot more gumption cause they know they won't take over by throwing money around. When they're in, they just hope to spend enough to get reelected based on special interest favors, just like the dems.

[Sabertooth]

More than 145 Representatives—more than enough to sustain a Presidential veto—have pledged to uphold a veto of supplemental spending legislation that busts the budget, House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) announced today.

“The Senate’s failure to pass a budget has left it to the House and to the President to take more responsibility to control spending,” Chairman Cox said. “Our pledge lets President Bush and our conferees know that they have full authority to save taxpayers billions of dollars. It creates a House-White House alliance in support of the bipartisan House bill, approved 280-138 on May 24.”

What a crock!

$320 Billion GOP Prescription Drug Bill Passes House

By resorting to shameless pandering and lying, I suppose we are once again, "Taking the Democrats' issues AWAY!™"

Sheesh.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

42. Jeff Flake
64. J.D. Hayworth
124. John Shadegg
135. Bob Stump
That's 4 of 5 AZ Republicans. Paging Jim Kolbe!

[Clemenza]

ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME! When will Bush use his F--kin' veto pen?

[hchutch]

And running off to be a third-party sunshine patriot, merely handing the Demcorats the keys to put more of these activists in is going to make the situation better in what way?

In case you also haven't noticed, let me list another one of the folks who Bush Sr. also nominated: Clarence Thomas. More often than not, Republicans have made good appointments. The two prior GOP Presidents gave us three good justices (Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas), one that is okay about half the time (O'Connor), and ONE dud (Souter).

Are you seriously telling me that there is NO difference between a President who would appoint and a senate that will confirm a Clarence Thomas as opposed to a President that would appoint and a Senate that would ONLY confirm a Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

[Deb]

You are never satisfied, encouraged or insightful. Amazing. You must enjoy gloom, you're so good at speading it.