It's about time it was said

[Care4all]

the president has the final say, on any budget congress passes....he can VETO their bills....

the only way the congress can over ride the president is with 2/3's of congress voting to over ride his veto.

the president's budget, determines the percentages of the projected revenues that will go towards defense, towards education, towards health and human services etc

like Clinton cutting defense budgets and adding to other areas...

like Bush expanding the defense budget spending and taking away from other areas.

the presidents also give congress a rough idea of how they want each department to spend their increase or decrease etc....but Congress IS the one that does the detail work....

and if the president does not agree, then he can veto the appropriation bills....

does the president veto everything he does not agree with that does not match up to his requests? that depends on the president....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

POINT out my lie, PLEASE...

i'll be waiting....

care

how about the fact you want to blame only Bush for the 2009 budget when it was approved by CONGRESS and that Obama was a MEMBER of congress at the time
and that congress had been in the hands of democrats for nearly 2 years

pleaseeeeeeee, cut me a break....

budgets are prepared by the president, due to congress by the end of february by law/rule, for the following oct 1 fiscal year.

yes congress has to pass the president's budget before it can become law and the PRESIDENT MUST sign off on it, or VETO it.

yes, other things not in the president's budget comes up throughtout the year....with president bush, he KEPT the cost of the 2 wars out of the budget, they were passed via a supplemental spending bill and signed by him.

yes, natural disasters and things like TARP bailout of the banks were not in initial presidential budget, they too were supplemental spending, of which the president ASKED FOR, and SIGNED.

yes congress appropriates, does the nitty gritty to fit in to the president's budget, the president can agree with them and sign off or veto.

why do you think the president HAS TO GIVE Congress the budget?

I found this interesting.

As Senator Lincoln pointed out, the Congress writes the budget, not the president.

And this...from United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 2nd Session

When Congress writes the Federal budget each year, we rely on a range of technical rules
and conventions – called budget “concepts” – that were designed to give us a stable and
consistent playing field for the policy decisions we make.

 

[DiveCon]

how about the fact you want to blame only Bush for the 2009 budget when it was approved by CONGRESS and that Obama was a MEMBER of congress at the time
and that congress had been in the hands of democrats for nearly 2 years

pleaseeeeeeee, cut me a break....

budgets are prepared by the president, due to congress by the end of february by law/rule, for the following oct 1 fiscal year.

yes congress has to pass the president's budget before it can become law and the PRESIDENT MUST sign off on it, or VETO it.

yes, other things not in the president's budget comes up throughtout the year....with president bush, he KEPT the cost of the 2 wars out of the budget, they were passed via a supplemental spending bill and signed by him.

yes, natural disasters and things like TARP bailout of the banks were not in initial presidential budget, they too were supplemental spending, of which the president ASKED FOR, and SIGNED.

yes congress appropriates, does the nitty gritty to fit in to the president's budget, the president can agree with them and sign off or veto.

why do you think the president HAS TO GIVE Congress the budget?

I found this interesting.

As Senator Lincoln pointed out, the Congress writes the budget, not the president.

And this...from United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 2nd Session

When Congress writes the Federal budget each year, we rely on a range of technical rules
and conventions – called budget “concepts” – that were designed to give us a stable and
consistent playing field for the policy decisions we make.

OOPS

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obama can't even deliver a speech without a teleprompter, do you honestly think he can write a federal budget?!?!?!


Wise up!!

 

[WillowTree]

so tarp and allof the rest, , which obama sppted him in enacting is what again? I was wondering how long it would be before he was bashed for doing what the new admin was hoping he would do and made known they sppted...nice bipartisanship. Obama takes credit for that saving the economy does he not?

and lets use real numbers here, there was NO surplus of funds when bush started, there hasn't been a REAL surplus since 67 I think it is.... ( I'd have to check).

huh?

there was a BUDGET surplus, get your facts straight....SS surplus is included in the BUDGET, whether we like it or not....

president bush used those SS surpluses to balance his budget as well, and if you take out the ss surplus that HE USED TO PAY for what income taxes should have paid for then you are talking much much much larger DEFICITS attributed to president bush's budgets.

president obama DOES NOT have any SS surplus to use in his budget to mask his deficits as president bush had the convenience of....SS is not creating surpluses anymore... in case you are wondering.

Total BULLSHIT. There was no surplus. Dream on though... and have a few more bong hits.

Exactly! every time she spews that surplus shit I just roll my eyes. It's like encoded in her brain..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More fodder for the Clinton apologist fake anti-war crowd:

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

Why We Fight by Ron Paul

Stop blaming Clinton Retard - he never invaded, although he could have....

Why could Clinton have done it when you say Bush couldn't do it?

 

[Oddball]

More fodder for the Clinton apologist fake anti-war crowd:

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

Why We Fight by Ron Paul

Stop blaming Clinton Retard - he never invaded, although he could have....

He kept the unilaterally imposed "no fly" zones in place, kept up the economic sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million chiiilllllldreeeeeeen and lobbed the sporadic bomb or cruise missile at Baghdad, when he needed to get his zipper off the front page.

In substance, his policy toward Iraq was no different than was that of either Bush.

 

[asterism]

Yes, ReallyTardedRick or Firewatch or whatever dumbass name he goes by there now.

Dude's got issues, that's for sure. He tried and failed. I'm really curious about Hannity's methods. He gets the message board dynamic being an early Freeper and he spoke quite a bit about how it becomes a matter of personality conflicts which then discredits the entire effort.

Interesting...Please, elaborate.

His message board has become a place overrun with personality conflicts, fiefdoms, wild inconsistencies in moderating, basically all the things he said discredited freerepublic back in the late 90s/early 2000s.

 

[Ravi]

More fodder for the Clinton apologist fake anti-war crowd:




Why We Fight by Ron Paul

Stop blaming Clinton Retard - he never invaded, although he could have....

He kept the unilaterally imposed "no fly" zones in place, kept up the economic sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million chiiilllllldreeeeeeen and lobbed the sporadic bomb or cruise missile at Baghdad, when he needed to get his zipper off the front page.

In substance, his policy toward Iraq was no different than was that of either Bush.

Another prisonplanet groupie.

 

[MikeK]

Reposted for the cheap seats:

Is Biden lying?

Of course he's lying. The U.N. Weapons Inspectors (every one of them) repeatedly and persistently reported that there were no such weapons in Iraq. They were ignored by the Bush Administration.

Biden is lying to support his boss's wish to protect his predecessor. Why Obama is doing that I don't know, but whatever his reason it is unacceptable and dismally corrupt.

Read what the Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, has to say about the WMD lies. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

 

[Ravi]

The war with Iraq was a HUGE mistake.

Eat it wingnuts.

 

[Oddball]

Stop blaming Clinton Retard - he never invaded, although he could have....

He kept the unilaterally imposed "no fly" zones in place, kept up the economic sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million chiiilllllldreeeeeeen and lobbed the sporadic bomb or cruise missile at Baghdad, when he needed to get his zipper off the front page.

In substance, his policy toward Iraq was no different than was that of either Bush.

Another prisonplanet groupie.

That is a UN number, fool.

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

He kept the unilaterally imposed "no fly" zones in place, kept up the economic sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million chiiilllllldreeeeeeen and lobbed the sporadic bomb or cruise missile at Baghdad, when he needed to get his zipper off the front page.

In substance, his policy toward Iraq was no different than was that of either Bush.

Another prisonplanet groupie.

That is a UN number, fool.

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So? Look at dud, believing the UN and blaming Saddam's idiocy on someone else.

 

[Samson]

That is a UN number, fool.

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm astonished you would bother showing the forest to those who cannot identify a tree.

Those that want to conveniently ignore historical context, and precedent, and imagine they could predict the future in 2003, would be crapping their pants right now if a Saddam Financed Terrorist Cell released nerve gas in Times Square on New Year's Eve, 2009.

Bush very effectively has prevented this.

Of course, then all the wild-eyed-frothing-at-their-mouths Neville Chamberlain Fan Club will claim that we should wait until a catastrophe happens to react.

No doubt, with Obama in office, they'll get their wish.

 

[hortysir]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

I'm sorry......
What was that, again?

 

[MikeK]

Using soldiers to fight a war. How exactly is that misusing them?

You've been so effectively indoctrinated in right-wing, pro-Bush propaganda that you can't shake loose the implanted deception well enough to realize the difference between your country being at war and your government conducting an illegal invasion of a non-threatening, militarily defenseless nation.

As I previously suggested, you're probably too young to remember when your country was at war, which was back in 1941, so you have trouble understanding the difference. I can tell you this about it: when my father, who had two infant sons, learned that his country was at war he and his brother went straight to the Washington Street Post Office in Broooklyn and enlisted in the Army -- as did the majority of able-bodied American men.

So I have this question: How old are you? Are you fit for military service? If so, and if you believe your country was at war, did you sign up? If not, why not?

Prove that either confict was unlawful. Then sue somebody!

While I am certain of it beyond any reasonable doubt I can't prove it in court because my government is too corrupt to investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration and make the evidence available. And the reason for this is half of the population consists of ignorant right-wing dupes who don't know the difference between war and war crimes.

N'est pas?

 

[Oddball]

Another prisonplanet groupie.

That is a UN number, fool.

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So? Look at dud, believing the UN and blaming Saddam's idiocy on someone else.

Wow...Just wow.

 

[Samson]

Using soldiers to fight a war. How exactly is that misusing them?

You've been so effectively indoctrinated in right-wing, pro-Bush propaganda that you can't shake loose the implanted deception well enough to realize the difference between your country being at war and your government conducting an illegal invasion of a non-threatening, militarily defenseless nation.

PFFFFTTTTttttttttt.....If you're a tin-horn dictator of a fucked up country that the USA suspects has WMD, then you'd better damn well not piss us off, let our inspectors go wherever the **** we want them to go, and maybe you won't need to hide in a hole if we decide to kick your ass.

N'est pas?

 

[Trajan]

He kept the unilaterally imposed "no fly" zones in place, kept up the economic sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million chiiilllllldreeeeeeen and lobbed the sporadic bomb or cruise missile at Baghdad, when he needed to get his zipper off the front page.

In substance, his policy toward Iraq was no different than was that of either Bush.

Another prisonplanet groupie.

That is a UN number, fool.

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes well you know that the left places a convenient demarcation when it comes to sanctions ala.....here it goes- OIL FOR FOOD---------how soon they force themselves to forget.....no, nothing to see here.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Using soldiers to fight a war. How exactly is that misusing them?

You've been so effectively indoctrinated in right-wing, pro-Bush propaganda that you can't shake loose the implanted deception well enough to realize the difference between your country being at war and your government conducting an illegal invasion of a non-threatening, militarily defenseless nation.

As I previously suggested, you're probably too young to remember when your country was at war, which was back in 1941, so you have trouble understanding the difference. I can tell you this about it: when my father, who had two infant sons, learned that his country was at war he and his brother went straight to the Washington Street Post Office in Broooklyn and enlisted in the Army -- as did the majority of able-bodied American men.

So I have this question: How old are you? Are you fit for military service? If so, and if you believe your country was at war, did you sign up? If not, why not?

Prove that either confict was unlawful. Then sue somebody!

While I am certain of it beyond any reasonable doubt I can't prove it in court because my government is too corrupt to investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration and make the evidence available. And the reason for this is half of the population consists of ignorant right-wing dupes who don't know the difference between war and war crimes.

N'est pas?

How long have you had these "issues"?