You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
House approves $70 billion more for war
Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy.
The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.
Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way '” and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.
"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
The vote reflected the reluctance by each party to deny money to troops in the field. At the same time, anti-war Democrats had found their position weakened by the decline in violence in Iraq.
War spending aside, Bush's GOP allies were divided over whether the overall spending bill was a victory for their party in the monthslong fight with Democrats over agency budgets.
Conservatives and outside groups such as the Club for Growth, which seeks to elect lawmakers opposed to tax and spending increases, criticized the bill for having about $28 billion in domestic spending that topped Bush's budget and was paid for by a combination of "emergency" spending, transfers from the defense budget and other maneuvers.
Republican leaders acknowledged some excesses. But they said the measure could have cost a lot more if the GOP and the White House not stood firm against more than $20 billion in additional domestic spending included in Democratic spending bills that passed last summer.
"The fact is we got the number down to the baseline," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Boehner supported moves that effectively broke Bush's budget cap to provide record budget increases for veterans and to build a fence and provide additional security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
While disappointed on the Iraq money, Democrats said the spending bill smoothed the rough edges of the president's February budget plan. That proposal had sought below-inflation increases for most domestic programs and contained numerous cuts and program eliminations.
For Democrats, just finishing the budget ended up as the driving goal. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of failing to enact the spending bills after criticizing then-majority Republicans for not doing so last year.
The spending legislation affects virtually every part of the government other than the Defense Department's core programs. It would pay for food and toy safety inspections, NASA, the FBI, the Coast Guard, education, health research and national park operations.
It also contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers, at a cost of more than $7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that fights such projects.
The bill would raise the pay of federal civilian workers by 3.5 percent, extend farm subsidies the food stamp program until March 15 and eliminated money for a next generation nuclear warhead. It also would keep banks from entering the real estate business.
But the White House succeeded in using veto threats to rid the bill of more contentious items such as ending a ban on U.S. aid to overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and easing financing of agricultural and medical sales to Cuba.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Where is all this change the Dems promised in 2006. With every passing day I become more sure a Republican will win in 2008.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Where is all this change the Dems promised in 2006. With every passing day I become more sure a Republican will win in 2008.
Republicans don't have a chance in 08 because this election is gonna be a vote against what Bush has done.
However, I do agree that this congress is full of pansies. Probably one of the worst congresses in history.
- Gunslinger
- Rep: 88
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
The choices are sad this year but Republicans do have a chance in spite of Bush. The reason being is once again...the choices. There isn't exactly anyone on the Democratic candidate side who is ideal either.
Back on topic: It's absolutely sickening to see 70 more billion being wasted. How far could that go in helping us here at home? Now he's pushing for a conflict with Iran...that is where we should have been to START with instead of dicking around in a place where the conflict has survived for 2,000 years. Does anyone really think the U.S. (or any other power for that matter) can change a cancer like that which has grown inside of a country and its people for such a long period of time? Only in fiction.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Randall Flagg wrote:Where is all this change the Dems promised in 2006. With every passing day I become more sure a Republican will win in 2008.
Republicans don't have a chance in 08 because this election is gonna be a vote against what Bush has done.
However, I do agree that this congress is full of pansies. Probably one of the worst congresses in history.
Look at the current polls. McCain and Hillary will get each nomination. McCain will stomp Hillary in the general election. The public is upset with Bush, Republicans just get some blame by association. The so called leaders of the Democratic party have failed to deliver. We will at least have 4 more years of a Republican president and I would want no other person in office right now than McCain. Ron Paul has some very appealing ideas, ideas that are the core of my political system, but we don't live in a utopia. From day one I have said it will be Hillary and McCain with McCain winning the election. I still believe I am right.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
McCain isn't gonna stomp anybody. Not even counting his record, he is way too fucking old. Don't bring up Reagan because that was magical and isn't happening again. McCain couldn't hold Reagan's jockstrap.
He would be 80 when he left office(I'm assuming two terms), and this country is not voting their great grandpa into office.
I cant stand Hillary or Obama, but whichever one of them wins the nomination is going to be our next president.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
You're using your personal bias as proof he won't be elected. McCain polls better against both Obama and Hillary. While there is certainly time to change, alot of independents will vote against Clinton rather than vote for McCain if you follow my drift. I have yet to hear McCain's age play a factor in any debate or commentary.
Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. She's on a roll and wil take every state leading up until Super Tuesday where she is still polling better than Obama. More people would show a bias towards a woman president than an "old" man.
I disagree with you James. Everything so far has shown McCain the stronger when matched against both DNC front runners. McCain has really shown his value to me with the success of the surge in Iraq. Some people may want to deny its success, but McCain backed that pony when everyone else jumped ship and he was right. That is the kind of leader I want, someone who does the right thing even if it isn't popular. Both Hillary and Obama's records have followed whatever was popular at the time.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Didn't McCain support that amnesty for illegals bullshit?? If so, that will become an issue in the general election. Didn't he say he wanted us to be in Iraq for 100 years? You think a country sick of the war is gonna vote for a hundred more years of it??
Sorry, he isn't the next president.
I agree about the flip flopping democrats, but McCain isn't enough to deliver a knockout blow.
Regarding polls, I'm not buying it anymore. Obama was ahead of Hillary by double digits and wound up losing.
Only polls that matter anymore are exit polls coming out as votes are being counted.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
The war isn't the issue some make it out to be. It's definitely not popular, but it's not the looming presence on everyone's mind. Furthermore, where do Obama and Hillary deviate from McCain on the issue? McCain wants to stay until Iraq is secure. I have heard neither Hillary or Obama say any different. Changing the amount of troops and our mission over there doesn't equal ending the war.
I disagree with McCain on his illegal immigration plan, but at least the gentleman has something to offer which is more than the other GOP candidates. Do either Hillary or Obama disagree with his plan? A man can't be attacked for an issue if his opponent supports it or proposes something very similar.
One bust in the polls doesn't mean anything. Nothing is for certain, but people should have been skeptical of the huge jump in Obama's numbers in the first place. Let's see the final votes this week compared to polls; I bet they're quite similar as was the case in Iowa.
I'm not saying McCain is a lock in; anything can happen. But it appears that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination and she will lose against McCain. It won't be a landslide, but the Clintons represent the same old routine just as much as Bush does. McCain has the image of going against Bush and that wil be his saving grace. Conservatives are being elected all over the world, why would the US be any different?
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Because "conservatives" have put us on the brink of a fucking depression, thats why. If the current trends continue, which is the dollar losing a penny of its value every three weeks, dollars will be used for toilet paper at the next inauguration. You can thank Bush and a lapdog congress for that.
McCain has an image of "going against Bush"?? In what universe? Certainly not this one, because he votes for anything Bush wants. One or two minor differences does not present the image of being against Bush.
I agree it wont be a landslide for either side, but people are not going to vote for "more of the same" when they can vote for "more of possibly the same".
McCain brings nothing to the table. I would rather have 4 more years of Bush than a McCain presidency.
Only way this country can even begin to drag itself out of its black hole is a tax increase, and McCain has Bush logic regarding taxes-- cut taxes by trillions while spending trillions we don't have. It was fucking moronic when it was first passed, and its even more moronic now.
In 2009 during a McCain presidency and you're paying 20 bucks for a can of pork and beans and 40 bucks for a gallon of gas, you'll be thinking a Hillary presidency wouldn't have been so bad.
There is more at stake this election then there EVER has been before. I wish people would realize that.
