LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quoteit is just all so overwhelming. How did that bastard ever get away with getting us in that quagmire to begin with. Lying prick.
Another 70 billion for Iraq thanks to useless Democrats
I don't understand why Americans even bother voting. I think you guys should all, en masse, stop paying Federal income tax to fund the crazy machine.WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill.
The 70-25 roll call paved the way for the Senate to pass a $555 billion omnibus appropriations bill combining the war funding with the budgets for 14 Cabinet agencies.
Bush was ready to sign the bill, assuming the war funding clears the House on Wednesday. Democrats again failed to win votes to force removal of U.S. troops or set a nonbinding target to remove most troops by the end of next year.
"Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Twenty-one Democrats and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — who stood with Republicans at a post-vote news conference — voted with every Republican present except Gordon Smith of Oregon to approve the Iraq funding.
The year-end budget deal between the Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush ended months of battling and disappointed GOP purists who complained the bill spends too much money and contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by members of Congress.
"Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. Conservatives estimated the measure contained at least $28 billion in domestic spending above Bush's budget, funded by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget, budget gimmicks and phantom savings.
With Bush winning the $70 billion infusion of troop funding, other Republicans muted their criticism.
"I do think the president has a victory here," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. But the win was hardly clear-cut for Republicans hoping the president would emerge from the monthslong battle with Democrats over the budget with a result that would more clearly demonstrate to core GOP voters the party's commitment to fiscal discipline.
While disappointed by ceding Iraq funding to Bush, Democrats hailed the pending appropriations bill for smoothing the rough edges of Bush's February budget plan, which sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cutbacks and program eliminations.
"The omnibus bill largely yields to the President's top-line budget numbers, but it also addresses some of the bottom-line priorities of the American people," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "The Grinch tried to steal Christmas, but we didn't let him get all of it."
Democrats were able to fill in most of the cuts by using the very budgetary sleight of hand lambasted by conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste.
The White House, which maintained a hard line for months, has been far more forgiving in recent days, accepting $11 billion in "emergency" spending for veterans, drought relief, border security and firefighting accounts, among others. Other budget moves added billions more.
"Congress did come down to the president's overall top line," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "And in regards of the emergency spending, most of that spending would have passed on an emergency basis anyway. It's not added into the baseline of the budget."
The bill passed the House late Monday. Under an unusual legislative two-step, the Iraq portion of the bill would be returned to the House on Wednesday, with Republicans supplying the winning margin. That vote, if successful, would send the entire omnibus bill to Bush for his signature.
Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement, Amtrak and housing as well as Bush's plan to eliminate the $654 million budget for grants to community action agencies that help the poor.
Democrats also reversed Bush-sought cuts to state and local law enforcement grants, aid to community action groups and airport modernization grants.
Democrats also added funding for food programs, subsidies to community development banks and Homeland Security Department grants to first responders.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group that opposes so-called pork barrel projects, counted 8,983 such "earmarks" worth $7.4 billion. These hometown pet projects include economic development grants, aid to local transit and police departments and clean water projects, among many others.
Senate OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan - Yahoo! News
I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.
Because people are stupid.
Frankly, it's not Bush's fault. The duty rests with the populace to control or depose him.
I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.
Well I have been hoping for an assassination for years now..but no luck. Of course that would leave in power Dart...
I'm telling you, it was a well executed plot!Originally Posted by Sojiita
Well I have been hoping for an assassination for years now..but no luck. Of course that would leave in power Dart...
"Thanks to the useless Democrats"??? So because they didn't put up a strong enough fight...they are to blame, rather than the inventors and perpetrators of the bill?
How about we hold the bullies responsible instead of their opposition?
"In the face of the blinding sun, I wake only to find
that Heaven is a stranger place than than one I've left behind." - SM
How about we hold the opposition responsible, because THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE IT.
It's their fucking job. The repukes are doing theirs, ie: being evil. The Dems are supposed to stop it, but have done a shit job for the last, oh decade. They let Bush get away with everything. They have so many avenues they could be using but refuse.
Being evil is one thing, but enabling it because you're too chickenshit to make a stand is almost worse. The Dems never stand. They always run awauy because someone calls them a bad name.
They don't know how to control the message, they don't know how to get the message out, they don't know how to define their political enemies, and they have no unity. Those are the basic ingredients for political gamesmanship and they seem either utterly ignorant or unwilling to do so. That's frightening! An 8th grade kid knows that!
They haven't stopped one Bush war bill from going through, they refuse to impeach, they just handed Bush and the telecoms the ability to avoid lawsuits from warrantless searches..
their track record is fucking abysmal and im calling them on it.
I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.
All the changes would have to happen on the local level, and that is not ever going to fucking happen, You can't go back and reverse how Wal mart and these huge corporations operate. The cities depend entirely on that sales tax. I wish we'd integrate better policies, but in these backward places, for example where I live, the damage is already done.
The "gift" that keeps on giving and giving and giving..............
So, true. And I know that this aging town that I live in is going to rely more heavily on that, because they are already reducing the propery tax rate this year.
The repukes are doing theirs, ie: being evil.Funny and sad and true all at the same time!
The Republicans are responsible for their actions, but the Dems have to take just as much of the blame. They refuse to step up to the plate and force Bush and the Republicans to do the right thing. The Dems have controlled the House and the Senate for almost a year now, and they still haven't gotten anything major accomplished because they lack the balls to take Bush to the mat.
I think they're more concerned about making sure they win the White House in '08, rather than dealing with Bush right now. Because if they were concerned about dealing with Bush, they would've already begun the impeachment process.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks