Only now does Obama pull out the veto pen !

[SteamWake]

What for you ask? Why defense spending of course.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/...ress_defense_1

[AVGWarhawk]

Hey, that is just great especially when NK said it would nuke our butts if we farted the wrong way. Man, Obama gets more brilliantly stupid with every pen stroke.

[Dowly]

cry babies.

[Max2147]

Make no mistake, the F-22 and F-35 engine issues aren't defense spending, they're pork barrel projects disguised as defense spending.

Our GOP-appointed Secretary of Defense has already made it very clear what his position is on this. I'd much rather have Robert Gates running our military than Congress. Gates cares about defending our country, Congressmen only care about getting money spent in their districts.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I'm a huge fan of the F-22 but...

Frankly, our military is beyond bloated anyways. For the most part, they have still not learned to focus on items other than big ticket Cold War era systems. And when they do, they end up with astronomical costs ANYWAYS due to mission creep, contractors' gimmicks, and Congressional pork (read payola all the way around). It needs to be reigned in. This kind of spending is not sustainable in our debtor economy, especially when our military already eclipses every other by several magnitudes.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Hey, that is just great especially when NK said it would nuke our butts if we farted the wrong way. Man, Obama gets more brilliantly stupid with every pen stroke.

I think the Pacific Ocean and our own little stock pile of atomic weapons has us covered.

PD

[SteamWake]

Ill be the first to admit that some of these programs may have been bloated perhaps even unecessary but to veto the entire bill?

There was no problem finding 10's of billions to bail out failing banks and 'stimulate' the economy.

By the way any of you feeling stimulated?

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Ill be the first to admit that some of these programs may have been bloated perhaps even unecessary but to veto the entire bill?

There was no problem finding 10's of billions to bail out failing banks and 'stimulate' the economy.

By the way any of you feeling stimulated?

The economic data released recently was better than expected, so something's working. The recession will end soon enough. When it does the Dems will say it was all Obama's stimulus package, and the GOP will say it was just the cyclical nature of the economy. As with all things like that, it'll be a combo of both.

As far as the defense spending bill, there's a huge difference between threatening to veto a bill that's being debated and actually vetoing it. It's also not like the military won't get funded if he vetoes it - they'll just send him another package to sign, hopefully without the F-22's and alternate F-35 engines (which is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard).

[geetrue]

Obama is not the anti-christ ...

He is the anti-defense ...

[August]

He wouldn't have to block the whole bill if he had a line item veto.

[Platapus]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court shot that down.

cf Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

[Skybird]

What do you want. You have how many trillions of debts - and you still want to spend as if nothing has happened? The only thing that is to be discussed is wether his other spending projects are wisely chosen or not. Being bancrupt and still wanting to buy half of all the globe's military does not go well together.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Max2147

The economic data released recently was better than expected, so something's working. The recession will end soon enough. When it does the Dems will say it was all Obama's stimulus package, and the GOP will say it was just the cyclical nature of the economy. As with all things like that, it'll be a combo of both.

As far as the defense spending bill, there's a huge difference between threatening to veto a bill that's being debated and actually vetoing it. It's also not like the military won't get funded if he vetoes it - they'll just send him another package to sign, hopefully without the F-22's and alternate F-35 engines (which is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard).

yea that 10% unemployment rate...

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Unfortunately the Supreme Court shot that down.

cf Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Yeah I know in that particular form but the general idea still has legs apparently. The right thing to do of course is to pass a constitutional amendment but something like this is probably what will be tried first:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde..._id=&Issue_id=

[Platapus]

I am not sure that I disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Clinton v. City of New York.

The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) seems pretty clear in the intent. There would have to be a real compelling benefit to take the power of creating legislation from 535 elected people and giving it to 1 elected person.

I hate the way Congress hides crap in otherwise good legislations and how they can politically blackmail the President in signing it. But I am not convinced that this "cure" won't be worse then the disease.

The entire congressional legislative process is based on compromise. One person, no matter how powerful is unable to push anything through congress without the cooperation of other congressmen/senators.

A Line Item Veto removes that.

I also believe it is in the best interests of our country that the Executive Branch of the Government not be instrumental in the constructing or packaging of legislation under the auspices of separation of powers.

In my opinion, the Line Item Veto sounds great on the surface, but does not stand up to deeper analysis.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am not sure that I disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Clinton v. City of New York.

The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) seems pretty clear in the intent. There would have to be a real compelling benefit to take the power of creating legislation from 535 elected people and giving it to 1 elected person.

I hate the way Congress hides crap in otherwise good legislations and how they can politically blackmail the President in signing it. But I am not convinced that this "cure" won't be worse then the disease.

The entire congressional legislative process is based on compromise. One person, no matter how powerful is unable to push anything through congress without the cooperation of other congressmen/senators.

A Line Item Veto removes that.

I also believe it is in the best interests of our country that the Executive Branch of the Government not be instrumental in the constructing or packaging of legislation under the auspices of separation of powers.

In my opinion, the Line Item Veto sounds great on the surface, but does not stand up to deeper analysis.

I agree with this.

Here in Wisconsin, up until 2008 our governor had a form of line item veto we nicknamed the "Frankenstein Veto". This power allowed him to literally change sentences by combining parts of other sentences. He could literally take any bill and make it into something else. Thankfully, the usually moronic voters in this state stripped away that power in a constitutional amendment.

The point is that the executive should be signing or vetoing bills sent to him, as approved by congress. If he doesn't like an item in the bill he should simply send it back. That's the way of our system of government.