The New American Tea Party

[Col Hogan]

Yes on the PB being the starting point...

And if you consider a drop of $11.3B to only $7.7B in unneeded crap good...I guess...

This is the reason I wish the President could have a line-item veto...I know, it's been ruled unconstitutional and I totally support the Constitution...this is one change I'd like to make if I could...

Sounds like the prez has no choice but to take what he can get. Ixnay on the line-item veto though. Way too much power in the executive branch, regardless of who's manning it.

you're right, I know, about the line-item being too much power...but....

[houndawg]

Sounds like the prez has no choice but to take what he can get. Ixnay on the line-item veto though. Way too much power in the executive branch, regardless of who's manning it.

you're right, I know, about the line-item being too much power...but....

If earmarks were a lot more than 2% of the budget I might feel different........

[ASUMountaineer]

Houndawg, I like it...we agree. The executive branch already has too much power. We can't keep giving it more.

[JoltinJoe]

you're right, I know, about the line-item being too much power...but....

If earmarks were a lot more than 2% of the budget I might feel different........

That's more a condemnation of the overall size of the budget ... Still, that 2% is a lot of money.

[houndawg]

Houndawg, I like it...we agree. The executive branch already has too much power. We can't keep giving it more.

I've always felt that way.

And if I hadn't, the past eight years would have surely changed my thinking.

[ASUMountaineer]

Houndawg, I like it...we agree. The executive branch already has too much power. We can't keep giving it more.

I've always felt that way.

And if I hadn't, the past eight years would have surely changed my thinking.

I completely concur. I admit, I voted for Bush in 2000. He ran as a decent, actual conservative. Then, I guess, the power went to his head. The worst part, is that Congress stood by and let it happen--even perpetuated it, mostly through the work of "conservatives." SMH

[travelinman67]

Sounds like the prez has no choice but to take what he can get. Ixnay on the line-item veto though. Way too much power in the executive branch, regardless of who's manning it.

you're right, I know, about the line-item being too much power...but....

There's a reason for this...and Bush is a prime example why a line item veto can NEVER be allowed...

Being from a "leftist" state, I (we) witnessed repeated acts by Bush to "punish" CA for it's solidly Democratic vote. The most blatant was during CA's electrical energy "shortage" crisis back in 2000-2001.

(background)

Spoiler: show

The "crisis" resulted from several large energy brokerages (Texas based Enron, and Reliant Energy being the two principal wholesalers) colluded to price fix the market and jack up CA's costs...doubling, tripling and higher (one day alone, CA was forced to pay $1400/kwh...costs which ultimately forced SoCal Edison and PG&E to file for bankruptcy). The Feds refused to intervene, despite OVERT evidence of Interstate Commerce violations. Even after CA's congressional delegation sought Bush's assistance, he refused to intervene.
The situation grew in scope, affecting industry and transportation to a degree then Gov. Davis began ordering rolling statewide "brownouts", and declared a state of emergency...basically shutting down the state

(wiki has a GREAT recap of the events, causes, and followup investigation...very well worth the read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ity_crisis)

Anyway, the gist was... FERC, who oversaw the market, REFUSED to act...despite overwhelming evidence of unlawful activity, and Bush REFUSED to intervene. In subsequent investigations, Ken Lay (remember him?) was quoted as saying his "friends" in the White House ensured non-intervention by FERC. It was not just a money grab, but in the end, punishment for CA's "liberal" political positions.

While othe Presidents in the past have acted "vindictively" to "punish" opponents and their constituents...Bush was one of the worst.

Point is...folks don't become President by "playing nice" with their opponents. Giving a President line-item authority over spending is tantamount to allowing the President to manipulate regional health of the country, benefitting the areas and people whom they feel an alliance, and punishing the regions they discriminately dislike. It's a pretty obvious statement, which unfortunately, carries a great deal of truth.

As a sidebar...I was speaking with a group of VERY old-school conservatives out here right after the crisis...business people who themselves had been harmed by the crisis...and started pointing out the early findings of the investigation, Lay and Enron's broker's overt, unabashed, unlawful admissions, and their boasting of Bush's complicit misuse of authority to "block" federal intervention. It took about 30 minutes for it to "sink in", but when it did, most of them went into tirades CURSING Bush. One of the outcomes of that get together was that we all agreed we'd never again donate money to the RNC. Everyone of them I know, and I still talk with all of them, have chosen to donate directly to candidates and bypass the parties and PAC's.

[dbackjon]

:speechless:

An-anti Bush rant from T-man!!

Confirmation of what I have been saying for years...


:faints:

[JoltinJoe]

How exactly am I living off the backs of others? I'm taking out loans that have to be paid back...no skin of your damn nose. And as for a job, I have one, assmunch. Perhaps it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problem. Or else your nose is just so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass you can't see for shit.

You're just bitter. STFU and get over it already. And welcome to my ignore list, douchebag. Rot in hell.

Assmunch

Joe, you gonna sit still for that?

Who cares? Mature, intelligent people don't resort to name calling.

[travelinman67]

:speechless:

An-anti Bush rant from T-man!!

Confirmation of what I have been saying for years...


:faints:

Hey...

I never said he was a good President!



He was never a fiscal conservative...which is requirement #1.

Closely following at #2 is the President MUST have integrity as it applies to doing what's right for ALL Americans. He never fulfilled that requirement either.


I've said it many times, however...

If the Dems had put forth SERIOUS candidates other than Gore and Kerry, then, well...it might have been a different story.

[Col Hogan]

Assmunch

Joe, you gonna sit still for that?

Who cares? Mature, intelligent people don't resort to name calling.

Besides, being on PFL's ignore list is kinda like being nominated for a HOF...puts you on the fast track to greatness...

[travelinman67]

Who cares? Mature, intelligent people don't resort to name calling.

Besides, being on PFL's ignore list is kinda like being nominated for a HOF...puts you on the fast track to greatness...

OH SNAP!!

[JoltinJoe]

Besides, being on PFL's ignore list is kinda like being nominated for a HOF...puts you on the fast track to greatness...

OH SNAP!!

You guys are killing me.

The funniest thing, though, is if you take a look at the whole thread, I didn't say anything to even provoke her. She goes off for no reason, and then calls me angry and bitter.

[houndawg]

OH SNAP!!

You guys are killing me.

The funniest thing, though, is if you take a look at the whole thread, I didn't say anything to even provoke her. She goes off for no reason, and then calls me angry and bitter.

I didn't notice, but then, I've been married for 25 years.

[houndawg]

I've always felt that way.

And if I hadn't, the past eight years would have surely changed my thinking.

I completely concur. I admit, I voted for Bush in 2000. He ran as a decent, actual conservative. Then, I guess, the power went to his head. The worst part, is that Congress stood by and let it happen--even perpetuated it, mostly through the work of "conservatives." SMH

It's funny, I have friends from Texas that say he was different as governor, would compromise, and really wasn't too bad, especially considering everything else he did turned to shit and left others holding the bag. They said that the feeling among a lot of Texans was that he just didn't have the steel to stand up to the religious right.

[travelinman67]

You guys are killing me.

The funniest thing, though, is if you take a look at the whole thread, I didn't say anything to even provoke her. She goes off for no reason, and then calls me angry and bitter.

I didn't notice, but then, I've been married for 25 years.

I don't care who you are, that's just funny right there.

[ASUMountaineer]

I completely concur. I admit, I voted for Bush in 2000. He ran as a decent, actual conservative. Then, I guess, the power went to his head. The worst part, is that Congress stood by and let it happen--even perpetuated it, mostly through the work of "conservatives." SMH

It's funny, I have friends from Texas that say he was different as governor, would compromise, and really wasn't too bad, especially considering everything else he did turned to shit and left others holding the bag. They said that the feeling among a lot of Texans was that he just didn't have the steel to stand up to the religious right.

That's how I have heard it too, in regards to his time as governor. It's a real shame that the neo-cons had their run of the WH post 9/11. The damage done to this country is going to take a long time to correct.

[houndawg]

It's funny, I have friends from Texas that say he was different as governor, would compromise, and really wasn't too bad, especially considering everything else he did turned to shit and left others holding the bag. They said that the feeling among a lot of Texans was that he just didn't have the steel to stand up to the religious right.

That's how I have heard it too, in regards to his time as governor. It's a real shame that the neo-cons had their run of the WH post 9/11. The damage done to this country is going to take a long time to correct.

One the differences between W and Reagan, imo, who were similar in a lot of other ways. Neither was considered an intellectual titan, one of Reagan's own top advisors described him as an "amiable dunce" and W's intellect needs no mention. Both were wildly popular within their party (as opposed to many of their Democrat opponents who were compromise offerings). The difference, imo, is that Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Reagan, amiable dunce though he may have been, sincerely believed a lot of the nonsense he spouted. A lot of the over-acted simpleminded stuff he came out with was really him (picturing the world coming together to fight aliens from space), and he seemed to have a few bedrock core beliefs that weren't negotiable. I think that had a lot to do with why one will be remembered as one of the best Presidents and the other will be remembered as one of the worst.

[JoltinJoe]

That's how I have heard it too, in regards to his time as governor. It's a real shame that the neo-cons had their run of the WH post 9/11. The damage done to this country is going to take a long time to correct.

One the differences between W and Reagan, imo, who were similar in a lot of other ways. Neither was considered an intellectual titan, one of Reagan's own top advisors described him as an "amiable dunce" and W's intellect needs no mention. Both were wildly popular within their party (as opposed to many of their Democrat opponents who were compromise offerings). The difference, imo, is that Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Reagan, amiable dunce though he may have been, sincerely believed a lot of the nonsense he spouted. A lot of the over-acted simpleminded stuff he came out with was really him (picturing the world coming together to fight aliens from space), and he seemed to have a few bedrock core beliefs that weren't negotiable. I think that had a lot to do with why one will be remembered as one of the best Presidents and the other will be remembered as one of the worst.

Like many of Reagan's political opponents, you underestimate Reagan's intellect. Maybe he was no genius, and it is scary to think that his wife used to consult with astrologers before advising him. But Reagan was sharper than many acknowledge

That being said, it was Clark Gifford, a Democrat who advised a number of Democratic presidents, who called Reagan an "amiable dunce," and he himself claimed that the statement was taken out of context. In any event, Gifford was a political opponent of Reagan and never was a "top advisor" to Reagan.

[dgreco]

If earmarks were a lot more than 2% of the budget I might feel different........

That's more a condemnation of the overall size of the budget ... Still, that 2% is a lot of money.

This is for you
[youtube][/youtube]

[UNI88]

At least the President seems to understand the gravity of the situation, and he has committed to trimming the current budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. Good luck. But we need to start running surpluses, like we did in the last years of the Clinton Administration.

Joe, I would vote for you.

Has the President committed to trimming the entire budget deficit by half by the end of his first term or has he only committed to reducing the annual deficit (i.e. how much the deficit grows in a given year) by half?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

At least the President seems to understand the gravity of the situation, and he has committed to trimming the current budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. Good luck. But we need to start running surpluses, like we did in the last years of the Clinton Administration.

Joe, I would vote for you.

Has the President committed to trimming the entire budget deficit by half by the end of his first term or has he only committed to reducing the annual deficit (i.e. how much the deficit grows in a given year) by half?

wow... in half?!?!

you live in that country... not me. whether it would be the dramatic rise in crime, both organized and not... or the sheer level of desperation of many of our fellow americans, or the complete collapse of our economy... i dont want to be around to watch it

[UNI88]

Joe, I would vote for you.

Has the President committed to trimming the entire budget deficit by half by the end of his first term or has he only committed to reducing the annual deficit (i.e. how much the deficit grows in a given year) by half?

wow... in half?!?!

you live in that country... not me. whether it would be the dramatic rise in crime, both organized and not... or the sheer level of desperation of many of our fellow americans, or the complete collapse of our economy... i dont want to be around to watch it

TTBF, I'm not sure what you're point is.

I agree that reducing the entire deficit by half in four years is probably unrealistic. But I don't think that reducing the amount of the annual deficit by half is that impressive, especially when you consider that with the bailout and stimulus the starting point is considerably higher than normal. If I have been spending $20,000/year and all of a sudden I hit a bad stretch and need to spend $40,000 in a year it isn't that impressive if I promise to get my spending back under control and reduce it by half over four years because half of $40,000 is still $20,000 which is what I was spending before the bad stretch.

Fiscal responsibility is change that I can believe in and that I expect from my elected officials (and granted I have been sorely disappointed for the last 8 years). I'm sorry if I see Obama's promise to reduce the deficit by half in 4 years as empty hyperbole and refuse to give him kudos for it. I would be much more impressed if he promised to eliminate deficit spending by the end of his first term.

[JoltinJoe]

At least the President seems to understand the gravity of the situation, and he has committed to trimming the current budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. Good luck. But we need to start running surpluses, like we did in the last years of the Clinton Administration.

Joe, I would vote for you.

Has the President committed to trimming the entire budget deficit by half by the end of his first term or has he only committed to reducing the annual deficit (i.e. how much the deficit grows in a given year) by half?

Annual budget.

It is going to take a long, long time to cut the national debt in half.

[houndawg]

One the differences between W and Reagan, imo, who were similar in a lot of other ways. Neither was considered an intellectual titan, one of Reagan's own top advisors described him as an "amiable dunce" and W's intellect needs no mention. Both were wildly popular within their party (as opposed to many of their Democrat opponents who were compromise offerings). The difference, imo, is that Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Reagan, amiable dunce though he may have been, sincerely believed a lot of the nonsense he spouted. A lot of the over-acted simpleminded stuff he came out with was really him (picturing the world coming together to fight aliens from space), and he seemed to have a few bedrock core beliefs that weren't negotiable. I think that had a lot to do with why one will be remembered as one of the best Presidents and the other will be remembered as one of the worst.

Like many of Reagan's political opponents, you underestimate Reagan's intellect. Maybe he was no genius, and it is scary to think that his wife used to consult with astrologers before advising him. But Reagan was sharper than many acknowledge

That being said, it was Clark Gifford, a Democrat who advised a number of Democratic presidents, who called Reagan an "amiable dunce," and he himself claimed that the statement was taken out of context. In any event, Gifford was a political opponent of Reagan and never was a "top advisor" to Reagan.

You're right, I was thinking that Don Regan said that.