THAT URANIUM STORY

NRO ^ | 7/14/2003 | David Frum

[MEGoody]

"If the spending for defense, or homeland security, or something related to the War on Terror needs to be raised, then great. Do it. But CUT SOMETHING ELSE!!! Don't just keep piling up on the budget."

Agreed,and I can think of a number of things that I think should be cut, e.g. the endowment for the arts. I've lobbied my representatives on that issue. If we all did that, it would make a difference. (I would imagine there are many on this thread who are whining about the increased spending that haven't bothered to do that.)

[dirtboy]

Yes, Bush did sign spending increases for homeland security, et al. In light of the continuing threat of terrorism, I'd say it was a wise move.

I have no problem with deficit spending if it is directly related to national defense and other areas have been cut as well. But both you and I know there is far more than that going on here.

[Area51]

And just for the record, please cite one spending bill he has vetoed since taking office?
Hehehehe this is gonna be good.
Sounds like the whirling sound of a Vortex starting to build. LOL

[MEGoody]

"Uh, it would be nice if he used it occasionally. And quit promoting spending increases. And quit caving to the Dems on spending issues."

What specific spending increases could he have vetoed without vetoing other important legislation at the same time? (As you know, most spending bills ride the coattails of other legislation. Wish we ould get a line item veto passed.)

[OWK]

anyone who thinks a President can simply keep vetoing everything that comes across his desk is politically naive.

I think you'd be surprised how much power even the threat of veto has..

Or perhaps how much power someone willing to let the government shut down for a few weeks rather than sign a pork-laden entitlement program has.

Excuses are a dime a dozen.

But they don't change a thing.

Character, principle, and integrity do.

[dirtboy]

What specific spending increases could he have vetoed without vetoing other important legislation at the same time? (As you know, most spending bills ride the coattails of other legislation. Wish we ould get a line item veto passed.)

Veto the whole damn thing and send it back. But instead, Bush is egging them on to spend more.

[MEGoody]

"And just for the record, please cite one spending bill he has vetoed since taking office?"

I do not know of any. Do you know of any he could have vetoed without also vetoing other important legislation?

[Area51]

No naming names. I am not getting into personal attacks; ditboy didn't name names, and neither will I.

I will not be baited into acting in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the owner of this forum.

177 posted on 07/15/2003 7:22 AM PDT by Miss Marple

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

Right, instead you do the baiting yourself, with insinuations!
How sincere of you.

[dirtboy]

I will wait for your JPEG or Gif of Ronald Reagan in tar and feathers.

That's even better Dane, although Reagan had to deal with a Dem House. Bush has no such constraint.

[OWK]

The president ACTIVELY LOBBIED for free prescription drugs for seniors.

Yet another socialist entitlement.

This wasn't a case of pork buried in another bill.

This was what HE asked for.

Let's cut the pretense.

[MEGoody]

"Veto the whole damn thing and send it back."

Yes, that would be great. And of course, the Dems would then use the other 'important legislation' I mentioned as ammo against Bush. Very politically smart. . .give your enemies ammunition.

[MEGoody]

"The president ACTIVELY LOBBIED for free prescription drugs for seniors."

Were you SURPRISED by that? He talked about that when he was campaigning for President.

[OWK]

Do you know of any he could have vetoed without also vetoing other important legislation?

Every one.

They are only linked, because a GOP majority congress in both houses, allowed it to be so.

[dirtboy]

Yes, that would be great. And of course, the Dems would then use the other 'important legislation' I mentioned as ammo against Bush. Very politically smart. . .give your enemies ammunition.

So, in other words, the GOP is no longer willing to stand up for its principles and take its positions to the people and let them decide, and instead they'll just cave in to the Dems.

Yeah, that's a VERY compelling reason to vote for the GOP next year.

[MEGoody]

"Character, principle, and integrity do."

As you define them, of course. LOL

[OWK]

Were you SURPRISED by that? He talked about that when he was campaigning for President.

And this is a GOOD thing?

[OWK]

As you define them

Clearly somebody has to.

[MEGoody]

"So, in other words, the GOP is no longer willing to stand up for its principles and take its positions to the people and let them decide, and instead they'll just cave in to the Dems."

What do you mean 'no longer'. When did they ever? Politics is politics. It's an ugly business, but the alternatives are less palatable.

[dirtboy]

Were you SURPRISED by that? He talked about that when he was campaigning for President.

I voted for him DESPITE that, not because of it.

[Area51]

"And just for the record, please cite one spending bill he has vetoed since taking office?"

I do not know of any. Do you know of any he could have vetoed without also vetoing other important legislation?


187 posted on 07/15/2003 7:28 AM PDT by MEGoody

---

The department of Education Bill for one.
The Tax cut makes two.

The rest of your argument is a strawman.
YOu don't sign a bill that costs 600 Million because you want to spend 10 million.