Congress May Adjourn Without Passing Needed War Funds

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The generals say the monies are needed by the 15th, Congress won't return until the 16th. I do wonder how this is going to effect the 'people's' view of Congress, when they already are giving them lower approval than GW. I've always thought GW bad at communicating and listening, the Democrats may be out GW'ing, GW for communication.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
The Senate just passed the funds.

Question is, will the President veto the funds for our troops.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The Senate just passed the funds.

Question is, will the President veto the funds for our troops.
With the timeline, yes. They know that, they must override and take the consequences of that or reconcile, not take off with bunnies or matzo.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
The President can either approve the funds for the troops or he can deny them. That's his perogative. But don't try and tell us that it is Congress which is holding them up. Congress has voted and approved the funds for the troops. If the President wants to withhold those funds from them, that's HIS issue, not Congress'.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The President can either approve the funds for the troops or he can deny them. That's his perogative. But don't try and tell us that it is Congress which is holding them up. Congress has voted and approved the funds for the troops. If the President wants to withhold those funds from them, that's HIS issue, not Congress'.
Right. That will NOT sell to the 'people', hasn't been for awhile now. You have been reading the polls on Congressional approval, no?

The democrats will 'own' this war, if they are not more circumspect, but they seem determined to do so.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
do you honestly think that the troops will run out of bullets? Do you think they will starve? Do you think that they will have to ask their parents to send bus fare so that they can get home?
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
Right. That will NOT sell to the 'people', hasn't been for awhile now. You have been reading the polls on Congressional approval, no?

The democrats will 'own' this war, if they are not more circumspect, but they seem determined to do so.
You can spin it any way you want... Lord knows the corporate media has been.

The funds are there, ready to be signed by the President. <---- FACTS

Everything else is spin.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
You can spin it any way you want... Lord knows the corporate media has been.

The funds are there, ready to be signed by the President. <---- FACTS

Everything else is spin.
LOL! There are 3 branches, you just want Congress to have all the checks, with none of the balances. Well as long as they are Democrats.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
LOL! There are 3 branches, you just want Congress to have all the checks, with none of the balances. Well as long as they are Democrats.
Don't get confused by the past six years of single party rule. You think that our Republic is supposed to look like a Kingdom since that's what the last six years looked like. What you're seeing NOW is how a representative democracy looks like... not the King being catered to by the jesters in Congress like the past six years.

If the President is out of control... which the voters of this country resoundingly indicated that they believe so this past November... it is the duty of Congress to reel him in. That's how our representative democracy works. If the President wants to play politics with the funding for our troops and veto the representatives of the citizens... that's his perogative. But, he has no one to blame but himself.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Don't get confused by the past six years of single party rule. You think that our Republic is supposed to look like a Kingdom since that's what the last six years looked like. What you're seeing NOW is how a representative democracy looks like... not the King being catered to by the jesters in Congress like the past six years.

If the President is out of control... which the voters of this country resoundingly indicated that they believe so this past November... it is the duty of Congress to reel him in. That's how our representative democracy works. If the President wants to play politics with the funding for our troops and veto the representatives of the citizens... that's his perogative. But, he has no one to blame but himself.
Resoundingly? Believe what you like, unless there are some quick changes, the next elections may well hold some nasty surprises for both parties.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
Resoundingly? Believe what you like, unless there are some quick changes, the next elections may well hold some nasty surprises for both parties.
Believe that at your peril. Now, would you like to get back to why the President is going to withhold funding for our warriors in Iraq nd Afghanistan?
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Believe that at your peril. Now, would you like to get back to why the President is going to withhold funding for our warriors in Iraq nd Afghanistan?
We've both made our pov's known, we'll see what happens with veto, Congress, and elections.
 

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
The funds are there, ready to be signed by the President.
Just curious--if you were President, would you sign the bill with all that outrageous pork slipped into it to get the needed votes for passage? This is an unconscionable bill to send to the President, to say the least. If GWB vetos it, I believe the people will understand why--so the left won't be able to make the hay out of it that they had hoped.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Just curious--if you were President, would you sign the bill with all that outrageous pork slipped into it to get the needed votes for passage? This is an unconscionable bill to send to the President, to say the least. If GWB vetos it, I believe the people will understand why--so the left won't be able to make the hay out of it that they had hoped.
AA, the pork demonstrates their hypocrisy, which they do not own alone. The much larger issue, the one that rates the veto is the timeline, an usurption of the powers of the CIC.

Congress could just reject the funding, but that would certainly be unwise. So instead, they are attempting to manage the war.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
Just curious--if you were President, would you sign the bill with all that outrageous pork slipped into it to get the needed votes for passage? This is an unconscionable bill to send to the President, to say the least. If GWB vetos it, I believe the people will understand why--so the left won't be able to make the hay out of it that they had hoped.
As I think I've stated time and again... I would have put funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in my regular budget if I were President. Not relied on a court full of jesters to make "emergency funding" available. The President has repeatedly stated that these wars are a long haul... he has known that these wars are not going to be over from year to year yet he continues to rely on "emergency funding" to fund them so that he can hide his budgets' deficiencies in providing a deficit cutting measures.

Now the President has his emergency funding sitting right in front of him, ready to sign. If he really cared about the troops on the ground, he'd sign for the money they need and suck up the earmarks.

One thing that I find really interesting about this is that there has been no acknowledgement that these war funding bills over the past four years have been a huge boon to the Republican Party since they have invariably gone to Defense contractors who send big money to the Republican Party. Where's the outrage over that?

President Bush, don't leave your troops without the funding they need to fight.
 

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
AA, the pork demonstrates their hypocrisy, which they do not own alone. The much larger issue, the one that rates the veto is the timeline, an usurption of the powers of the CIC.

Congress could just reject the funding, but that would certainly be unwise. So instead, they are attempting to manage the war.
Article I, Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;...

...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


Since it seems so many Republicans don't know how to Google the word "Constitution"... I've provided the relevant section here.

The President only has authority over the military which is provided to him by Congress. If the Congress authorized enough spending for just two guys on horses with pea shooters... he'd be the Commander in Chief of those two guys. The Commander in Chief has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to 1) declare war, 2) determine the size of the military, 3) decide how to pay for the military.

But, Republicans like Kathianne don't want a Constitution... they want a Kingdom where a Republican King makes all of the decisions and the Congress plays lapdog to him.

Sorry, not what our Constitution says, intended to say or kind of says... it's really quite clear in its language. But, the right-wing radio whackos know how to play to their ignorant crowds of lemmings and know that they will never bother actually reading the Constitution to see if what they are being told to parrot is actually the truth.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Article I, Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;...

...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


Since it seems so many Republicans don't know how to Google the word "Constitution"... I've provided the relevant section here.

The President only has authority over the military which is provided to him by Congress. If the Congress authorized enough spending for just two guys on horses with pea shooters... he'd be the Commander in Chief of those two guys. The Commander in Chief has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to 1) declare war, 2) determine the size of the military, 3) decide how to pay for the military.

But, Republicans like Kathianne don't want a Constitution... they want a Kingdom where a Republican King makes all of the decisions and the Congress plays lapdog to him.

Sorry, not what our Constitution says, intended to say or kind of says... it's really quite clear in its language. But, the right-wing radio whackos know how to play to their ignorant crowds of lemmings and know that they will never bother actually reading the Constitution to see if what they are being told to parrot is actually the truth.
that's the funding. Personally, I could care less about GOP, wish they got stuff different, but they haven't.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Finally, someone explains to these extreme right wingers, That the president is not the GOD of the land. The president is in check by congress, congress is in check by the supreme court, and the president gets to choose the members of the supreme court and give the green light to drop bombs. President Bush knows nothing about strategy, nothing about religious warfare, nothing about military tactics. He is not giving ground orders to troops, infact the only thing he knows how to do, is

1) make money
2) scare people by saying terrorists will kill you
3)And smile while talking about serious issues.

Congress passing this bill to fund the troops is a compramise to the president. It is saying "we will fund the troops like we said we would, if you sign this bi-partisan bill to de-escalate the war, which is what the american people put us in office to do". What is congress suppose to do? They are forced to choose between loyalty to the american people, and loyalty the president....And its clear they have chosen the american people.

The decision is up to the president, if he does not sign, it is HE who did not Fund the troops. His stubborn attitude got him in this position.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Finally, someone explains to these extreme right wingers, That the president is not the GOD of the land. The president is in check by congress, congress is in check by the supreme court, and the president gets to choose the members of the supreme court and give the green light to drop bombs. President Bush knows nothing about strategy, nothing about religious warfare, nothing about military tactics. He is not giving ground orders to troops, infact the only thing he knows how to do, is

1) make money
2) scare people by saying terrorists will kill you
3)And smile while talking about serious issues.

Congress passing this bill to fund the troops is a compramise to the president. It is saying "we will fund the troops like we said we would, if you sign this bi-partisan bill to de-escalate the war, which is what the american people put us in office to do".

The decision is up to the president, if he does not sign, it is HE who did not Fund the troops. His stubborn cowboy attitude got him in this position.
You all certainly are taking your marching orders. Speaking of sheep, not a new phrase among you.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top