What was everybody's impression? I heard someone who is completely out of touch with the average American.

Bush: I'm going to veto any bill that doesn't cut earmarks by 50%. That's great George. Where was this your first 7 years. The guy who has never vetoed a spending bill with his foot out the door decides to get tough on spending.

Bush: Pell Grants for kids. 2400 kids escaped a failing public school. That's great George now what about the 58,000 other kid's you left behind in those failing public schools.
Bush:Iran. Did you even bother to read your NIE?, George

Well this is it in a nutshelll...............

Bush: Blah Blah Blah cut taxes.....Blah Blah Blah spend.......Blah tax cuts permanent..... Blah Blah a shiny new car in everyone's driveway.... blah blah blah cut taxes....... Our fighting men and women give em the best we have.... blah blah cut taxes...........

blah blah blah none of the contents of the SOTU Address matters especially from a lame duck President in an election year.

I compare the STOU to my "Travel Wish List" on Expedia.com.. Sure I'd love to go sailing and scuba diving in the South Pacific for a month, but I know damn well its not going to happen.

Congress unlikely to buy Bush proposals

WASHINGTON - A Democratic Congress is poised to heed President Bush's call to help save the economy, but may not give him much else after a State of the Union speech that recycled many of the administration's past initiatives.

A lame duck president called again for immigration reform, an end to lawmakers' pet projects, control of Social Security spending and making tax cuts permanent. Democrats have rejected those Bush initiatives before.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080129/ap_o...e_of_union

As for those earmarks...you know how most of them are enacted???

They are tacked on to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, or a Iraq-Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriation Bill.. and you know damn well that Bush isn't going to Veto those. The Iraq Pullout Timetable Bill was vetoed, but only because it had a timetable in it.. all the pork stayed.

Remember... NO LINE ITEM VETO....

Over the past 7 years both parties have tacked their useless pork on to crucial legislation.

Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" was the product of Ted Stevens. R- Alaska. Likewise, the Democrats have equally bad examples of useless garbage spending. Leahy had some garbage subsidy for Vermont Maple Syrup in a Farm Bill.

But aside from public humiliation, what can the President do about it without a line item veto? The proposed Executive Order for Federal Agencies to "ignore" earmarked appropriations won't fly. Remember Nixon's actions that led to the 1974 Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act. See 2 U.S.C. Section 601. Congress can override most attempts to impound funds.

Think about this for a moment... Think about what our government has become.

It is NOT about having ideas, being principled, whatever... It's about a map to the right number of votes. The simplest example is Presidential politics where you only campaign in states where you can win, but aren't assured of it. You tailor your agenda to accomplishing that. You don't care about the people in states where your party is the minority. In Congress, it's about what can I get (so as to get re-elected) including a bridge to nowhere (remember, that bridge created jobs) without having to vote for something that your constituency hates. Put my pork in a bill that I won't lose votes over, and you can have my vote.

and don't tell me Obama or anyone else is an agent of "change". I'd sooner believe that in his late years, when he no longer cares what people think of him, that a guy like Kennedy would truly change. Not Kennedy, because other family members will be running for office, and his name is MUCH bigger than he is (which is saying something) but some older senator.

The answer isn't different politicians, it's different politics. Does it really make sense for us to send local money to Washington so that they can then tell us how to spend it locally?? You end up with highway funds in a state that needs farm subsidies, and farm subsidies in a state that needs roads... and THAT is why you get bridges to nowhere and city-wide wireless internet in communities that can't afford computers. Take away the money from Washington, and keep it local, and I guarantee more of YOUR and YOUR COMMUNITIES needs will be addressed.

WMD Owl Wrote:Remember... NO LINE ITEM VETO....

Over the past 7 years both parties have tacked their useless pork on to crucial legislation.

Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" was the product of Ted Stevens. R- Alaska. Likewise, the Democrats have equally bad examples of useless garbage spending. Leahy had some garbage subsidy for Vermont Maple Syrup in a Farm Bill.

I used to be in favor of a line item veto, but as I have grown more cynical about the political process, I've become convinced that the vast majority of earmarks vetoed would be from the opposition party (particularly if one party controlled both branches).

What might be more workable, or at least less able to manipulate, is to divide the functions of the federal government into sections, say 100 for Defense, 200 for Intelligence, 300 for Transportation, etc. and require all line items in a bill to be organized under these headings. Instead of a line item veto, give the President the authority to veto individual sections. Of course, this would require an extensive Constitutional ammendment & probably won't work that much better (I've learned to never underestimate the resourcefulness of a politician after my money), but it's just a thought.

Guys... let me use a perfect example.

New Orleans is/was a TERRIFIC city built in a horrible location... below sea level. It was built there NOT because the people of Louisiana wanted to live there, but because the Federal government offered them flood control money. They created the land, and moved onto it. Same thing happens when a dam is built. People build homes where the only thing between them and being 15 feet underwater is technology designed to last 20 years financed by 50 year bonds.

If I told you that it was going to take hundreds of billions of dollars to "create" land for 400,000 people to live on, and that even with that, they wouldn't necessarily be safe from known hazards... would you vote for that?? If it were in your district, and it wasn't your money... probably... If it was in your district, but YOUR money, would you?? The hundred of billions of dollars for Louisiana are because we gave hundreds of billions to other states... multiplied by 50, that's some real money. Is it a surprise we don't watch our Federal money more carefully?

Machiavelli Wrote:What was everybody's impression? I heard someone who is completely out of touch with the average American.

Shocking.

Quote:Bush: I'm going to veto any bill that doesn't cut earmarks by 50%. That's great George. Where was this your first 7 years. The guy who has never vetoed a spending bill with his foot out the door decides to get tough on spending.

I actually agree with this.

Quote:Bush: Pell Grants for kids. 2400 kids escaped a failing public school. That's great George now what about the 58,000 other kid's you left behind in those failing public schools.

Yes. It's all his fault he didn't fix in 7 years what it took 50 years to create.

Quote:Blah Blah a shiny new car in everyone's driveway

That's the dems talking Mach. You're confused.

Quote:Our fighting men and women give em the best we have....

So I take it you disagree with that comment?

That's the dems talking Mach. You're confused.


Sadly, it's politician's talking. Dem, Repub. Not much difference. The whole cast will say, do, and direct whatever to get the vote of 51%. All I know is our deficit is at 9.2 trillion dollars and there is NO end in sight. For all of Clinton's faults, that is one thing I like about the administration. We were well on our way to paying off the debt. We are light years away from that now. Thanks to the ADMINISTRATION you voted for.

When I look back on the 90's. I think of p*ssy and money. Great Great times.

When I think back on W's years. I think of recession, Greed, wars for oil, torture, Lies, rape of our environment. Not so great of times.

I agree with much of what you say Mach, but in all honesty, the reason the defecit shrunk under Clinton was that he had grandiose visions (universal healthcare etc.) that would have been VERY expensive, and the Republican Congress refused to give him what he wanted, even the good things he wanted on the only argument they could make at the time... no new taxes,one of their programs... and Clinton responded by cutting/vetoing THEIR programs, and there wasn't enough voted to overturn a veto. The animosity between Clinton and Newt actually HELPED cut spending... and the economy responded to Reagan's tax cuts, and Clinton's spending cuts. It was a confluence of unrelated events, not some master plan by anyone from either party.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Given the choice, we (as a country) chose the evil of two lessers... not because they represented us, but because they played the game.

Hambone10 Wrote:Guys... let me use a perfect example.

New Orleans is/was a TERRIFIC city built in a horrible location... below sea level. It was built there NOT because the people of Louisiana wanted to live there, but because the Federal government offered them flood control money.

Actually, the French founded New Orleans BEFORE there was a United States. so blame them for the initial location. We just bought the place...

But you are right... we will be investing over $7 billion (initial estimate) in Federal Money to build triple redundant "Netherlands Style" Flood Control Walls when a practical solution is to leave the French Quarter and port infrastructure there, and move the population across the river.

Man,

The planets must be aligned. I can't agree more WMD. The 9th ward. That whole region would be great for a port and warehousing district. Let the shipping companies buy them out. Go up the damn river 10 miles to a place above sea level and section off a new ward. Make some farmer happy. Let American's know at least we won't be coming back to pay for the same damn thing over again. It's ridiculus.

Hambone10 Wrote:I agree with much of what you say Mach, but in all honesty, the reason the defecit shrunk under Clinton was that he had grandiose visions (universal healthcare etc.) that would have been VERY expensive, and the Republican Congress refused to give him what he wanted, even the good things he wanted on the only argument they could make at the time... no new taxes,one of their programs... and Clinton responded by cutting/vetoing THEIR programs, and there wasn't enough voted to overturn a veto. The animosity between Clinton and Newt actually HELPED cut spending... and the economy responded to Reagan's tax cuts, and Clinton's spending cuts. It was a confluence of unrelated events, not some master plan by anyone from either party.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Given the choice, we (as a country) chose the evil of two lessers... not because they represented us, but because they played the game.

Divided government is our friend. That's why we need a viable third party, one to control the House, one to control the Senate, & one the Presidency.

Earmarks should be eliminated entirely. Congress critters have a legit reason to fight and win earmarks: their districts have been taxed, and if they don't fight to get some of that money back, somebody else in some other district will take it. This drives a frenzy of earmarking that goes way too far. Eliminate earmarks altogether.

Divided Govt.

A real wise man tried to make that argument right here in this very spin room in 2004.

You're right WMD... What I meant by the inflated costs (for dramatic effect) is the present value of all the money that has been spent over the decades to solve a problem that didn't need to be solved in the first place, and would have been more easily solved by building the parts of New Orleans we LOVE a few miles away.

While the French created the settlement... they didn't put 400,000 people there. I could see (as you suggest) 50,000 people living in the higher elevations of the city and working AT, but still not below sea level. The other 350,000 people would be across the river.

Hambone10 Wrote:... no new taxes,one of their programs... and Clinton responded by cutting/vetoing THEIR programs, and there wasn't enough voted to overturn a veto.

the biggest program he cut was the Military under the false notion of a "peace dividend", it was nearly cut in half. the blunder we are paying for to this day, and done in the light of 93 WTC attack by Al-Qaeda, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc.

guns are easier to cut than butter, though more important in the world we live in.

Hambone10 Wrote:You're right WMD... What I meant by the inflated costs (for dramatic effect) is the present value of all the money that has been spent over the decades to solve a problem that didn't need to be solved in the first place, and would have been more easily solved by building the parts of New Orleans we LOVE a few miles away.

What I would like to know is what happened to the BILLIONS of dollars in Federal Money that has been given through the years to the Levee Management Boards that were supposed to maintain the Levees, walls, pump stations, etc. After Katrina, the media reported that the pumps dated back to the 1930’s even though millions were allocated for their replacement when a Hurricane hit New Orleans back in the late 1950’s. So who stole the money and when?

I know that Louisiana is the closest thing to a “Black Hole” in which taxpayer funds mysteriously disappear (usually into someone’s back pocket) and are never accounted for...but still public safety systems such as Levees are something that common sense dictates that you build and maintain to specifications, instead of using as a vehicle for corruption.

I guess you could Federalize the system and make the Army Corps of Engineers 100% responsible for building and maintaining the new "Cat 5 Proof" New Orleans Dike. That would prevent the local crooks from getting their hands in the cookie jar.

As for any local contractors that would try to shortcut construction and keep the difference, or try to rip-off the Feds...title 18, United States Code has some interesting remedies..

GGniner Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:... no new taxes,one of their programs... and Clinton responded by cutting/vetoing THEIR programs, and there wasn't enough voted to overturn a veto.

the biggest program he cut was the Military under the false notion of a "peace dividend", it was nearly cut in half. the blunder we are paying for to this day, and done in the light of 93 WTC attack by Al-Qaeda, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc.

guns are easier to cut than butter, though more important in the world we live in.

Well, I suppose he never figured that we would be invading 2 countries on the verge of making it 3. I know you right nut cases love guns. I just wish you would shoot each other so we can clean up the gene pool.

Machiavelli Wrote:What was everybody's impression? I heard someone who is completely out of touch with the average American.

Bush: I'm going to veto any bill that doesn't cut earmarks by 50%. That's great George. Where was this your first 7 years. The guy who has never vetoed a spending bill with his foot out the door decides to get tough on spending.

Bush: Pell Grants for kids. 2400 kids escaped a failing public school. That's great George now what about the 58,000 other kid's you left behind in those failing public schools.
Bush:Iran. Did you even bother to read your NIE?, George

Well this is it in a nutshelll...............

Bush: Blah Blah Blah cut taxes.....Blah Blah Blah spend.......Blah tax cuts permanent..... Blah Blah a shiny new car in everyone's driveway.... blah blah blah cut taxes....... Our fighting men and women give em the best we have.... blah blah cut taxes...........

You are a Democrat, correct? What do you think is going to happen when one of the two Santa Clauses gets elected? I have seen nothing about balancing a budget from those two and if they had said something about it, it's negated by the money they're promising to give away. Hillary MUCH more so than Barack.

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:What was everybody's impression? I heard someone who is completely out of touch with the average American.

Bush: I'm going to veto any bill that doesn't cut earmarks by 50%. That's great George. Where was this your first 7 years. The guy who has never vetoed a spending bill with his foot out the door decides to get tough on spending.

Bush: Pell Grants for kids. 2400 kids escaped a failing public school. That's great George now what about the 58,000 other kid's you left behind in those failing public schools.
Bush:Iran. Did you even bother to read your NIE?, George

Well this is it in a nutshelll...............

Bush: Blah Blah Blah cut taxes.....Blah Blah Blah spend.......Blah tax cuts permanent..... Blah Blah a shiny new car in everyone's driveway.... blah blah blah cut taxes....... Our fighting men and women give em the best we have.... blah blah cut taxes...........

You are a Democrat, correct? What do you think is going to happen when one of the two Santa Clauses gets elected? I have seen nothing about balancing a budget from those two and if they had said something about it, it's negated by the money they're promising to give away. Hillary MUCH more so than Barack.

Well, they can't be worse than your hero King George. BTW, we won't be paying the incredible amounts for staying in Iraq. That is a good start right there.