Only now does Obama pull out the veto pen !

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sorry to have to be on you Mr. Skybird, but Mr. Obama supported and signed into law, more US spending in his first 100 days in office than all other presidents allowed spent during their entire terms, combined. I know of no families who can spend their way out of debt, yet our president seems to think it is possible. How can anyone support that? Unless of course the decline of the US into a debtor nation is attractive. That seems to be the case with Mr. Obama., and he is acting on that perspective.

[Morts]

He's Barack Oooobaaamaaaa !

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I'm sorry to have to be on you Mr. Skybird, but Mr. Obama supported and signed into law, more US spending in his first 100 days in office than all other presidents allowed spent during their entire terms, combined. I know of no families who can spend their way out of debt, yet our president seems to think it is possible. How can anyone support that? Unless of course the decline of the US into a debtor nation is attractive. That seems to be the case with Mr. Obama., and he is acting on that perspective.

Hm...

Originally Posted by Skybird

The only thing that is to be discussed is wether his other spending projects are wisely chosen or not.

Spending for spending's sake makes no scence unless one is about making people impoverished. Am I wrong?

Of the 7.8 billion spent on the stimulus only 190.1 million has been allocated. Something is going on.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Spending for spending's sake makes no scence unless one is about making people impoverished. Am I wrong?

Of the 7.8 billion spent on the stimulus only 190.1 million has been allocated. Something is going on.

What about all of the jobs this so called stimulus bill was suppose to create?

Uncle Sam is hiring I hear and growing by leaps and bounds, mostly for next years census is the only explanation they give.

[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.