Re: Up Yours Mr *** President!!


"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1194561532.561984.208200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 8, 4:56 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are either in favor of all the "pork" that is loaded in this bill or
you
are against "pork barrel" spending. I gather you are in favor of "pork
barrel" spending. That is your choice, but I am willing to bet in
principal, the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of "pork
barrel"
spending....

"9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt" <icadser...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
messagenews:1194555844.455520.37210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In First Bush Veto Override, Senate Enacts Water Bill

Senator Barbara Boxer spoke to reporters today about the Senate vote
to enact a $23 billion water projects measure.

By DAVID STOUT
Published: November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a
popular $23 billion water projects measure affecting locales across
the country, thereby handing President Bush his first defeat in a veto
showdown with Congress.

The vote was 79 to 14, far more than the two-thirds needed to override
the veto that President Bush cast last Friday. Only 12 Republicans
voted against the measure, and just two Democrats, Senators Russell D.
Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

On Tuesday, the House voted by 361 to 54 in favor of the bill, also
well over the two-thirds barrier to nullify the veto.

Enactment of the water projects measure had been widely expected,
despite the veto, given the importance of the bill to individual
districts and, of course, the lawmakers that represent them. The
measure embraces huge endeavors like restoration of the Florida
Everglades and relief to hurricane-stricken communities along the Gulf
Coast and smaller ones like sewage-treatment plants, dams and beach
protection that are important to smaller constituencies.

The bill authorizes the projects but does not appropriate the money
for them. Appropriation of funds will have to be taken care of in
subsequent legislation.

The veto of the water bill was the fifth cast by Mr. Bush, and the
first to be overridden by Congress. The president and some Republicans
had complained that the bill was wasteful. Some critics said the
measure did not do enough to reform the Army Corps of Engineers, which
would handle much of the work, and was larded with political pork.

But, as the comments of lawmakers made clear today, pork is in the eye
of the beholder.

The bill "is one of the few areas where we actually do something
constructive," Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip,
told The Associated Press. He said the bill contains "good, deserved,
justified projects."

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, also argued in favor of
overriding the veto. "This bill is enormously important, and it has
been a long time coming," Mr. Vitter said.

Mr. Lott and Mr. Vitter side with President Bush far more often than
they oppose him. But both senators represent areas that were hard-hit
by Hurricane Katrina, and their votes to override Mr. Bush's veto
underscored the adage that politics is basically local, or at least
regional.

Then, too, the bill was the first water-projects measure in several
years, so there was plenty of pent-up demand for money in locales from
coast to coast.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said the
veto override "sends an unmistakable message that Democrats both will
continue to strengthen our environment and economy and will refuse to
allow President Bush to block America's real priorities for partisan
reasons."

"The Water Resources Development Act provides authority for essential
new navigation projects and funds programs to combat flood and coastal-
storm damage, restore ecosystems, and projects guided by the Army
Corps of Engineers essential to protecting the people of the Gulf
Coast region," Mr. Reid said.

Mr. Bush previously vetoed a stem cell-research bill (twice), an Iraq
spending bill that set guidelines for withdrawing troops and, most
recently, a children's health insurance bill.

Senator Feingold said he was disappointed at the lost opportunity to
fix "this flawed, bloated bill." He noted that there is already a huge
backlog of projects that have been authorized but for which money has
not yet been appropriated.

The Associated General Contractors of America lobbied hard for passage
of the bill. "This week's veto override means that this nation will
finally have the opportunity for new investments in improved flood
control, increasing navigation capacity and ecosystem restoration,"
Stephen E. Sandherr, the organization's chief executive, said after
the Senate vote.

For the first several years of his "reign" and with a fully Republican
controlled
congress, the president used his veto powers NOT ONCE.

Federal Debt at Start of Bush presidency -> 5.9 Trillion

Federal Debt today - 9 trillion.

Now, a little over 1 trillion of that debt was for the worthless Iraq
war
with over 200 million of taxpayer money LOST for which there is no
accounting.

SO IF YOU WERE PLANNING TO SIT THERE AND PUT THE BLAME ON EITHER OF
THE TWO CLINTONS, JIMMY CARTER OR THE DEMOCRATS, YOU CAN FORGET IT.

Bush has persisted in the illusion and delusion that he is being
fiscally responsible while the demos are the big spenders. But, like
Reagan, the reality is not so simplistic.

That debt, accumulated by deliberate policy of Bush and many
Republicans has now led to a weakening of our currency, and long term
debt to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates, Chinese, Japanese and many
many others.

EVERY citizen should be as outraged at this reckless REPUBLICAN
spending
as they are at any democrats.

Citizen Jimserac


I guess another lesson in economics is in order for you youngeters. Used to
be, all these statistice and projections were absent politics and the
American citizen could garner some sense of the economic future. But now,
the politicians have found that the economy is a one of the best ways to
keep the American citizenry confused and that's exactly what they do. I'm
not going to get into a protracted discussion about this because I simply
don't care, but for those of you that would like to be a little more
credible, just remember. They project the liabilities by extrapolating the
current debt plus the current rate of increase of the debt plus the
projected interest on the debt. What they don't do is take into
consideration the the same projections on the revenue side of the equation.
When they do that, they find that the unfunded liabilities are only around
5% of the projected revenue which, any economist will tell you is very, very
healthy. And, I think if you would look back say 30 years you would discover
that the 5% figure has remained very constant and that's because the
moneychangers keep it that way.

Hell, 10 or so years ago, nobody had ever heard of "unfunded liabilities".
It's something the republicans came up with to scare all the voters into
voting for them. But, like all political tricks, they always backfire.


--
Dissent is a luxury afforded those who are
protected by much better men and women.


http://www.reason.com/

JC


.

Loading