• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you believe a president should have a line item veto?

Do you believe a president should have a line item veto?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 70.4%

  • No

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Total voters
    27
Thought you didn't care for polls????:rofl

I think the line item veto allows a president to eliminate some of the pork doesn't it? I'm ALL for that!
 
Yeah, sure.

Does anyone think this president would have the guts to cut $10 billion in pork out of the budget? I don't.

Requesting the line-item veto at this point (where's he been since January 2001?) is nothing but a political get my ratings up ploy. Needless to say, once the notion enter committee, it will be 2009 before it sees daylight....hmmmm Bush won't be Prez then, will he? So now he can play Reagan and condemn Congress for spending too much while not doing anything about it.

Of course, Reagan was contending with a Surrender Monkey congress, and Bush is dealing with his own party. You'd think a president wouldn't have to use a line-item veto on his own party, right?
 
Captain America said:
Thought you didn't care for polls????:rofl

I think the line item veto allows a president to eliminate some of the pork doesn't it? I'm ALL for that!
Click to expand...

Really, that surprises me, you lefties usually like to spend like a drunken sailor......
 
Navy Pride said:
Really, that surprises me, you lefties usually like to spend like a drunken sailor......
Click to expand...

You're kiddin' right? (Well, except for the drunken sailor part...you may know more about that than I do.;) )

In case you haven't noticed....in regards to spending....nevermind...(why do I bother?:roll: )

Just the same, I am of the opinion that all the politicians, both democRATS or repugnantcans, have no problem whatsoever spending yours or my tax dollars like there is no tomorrow. It WHAT the spend it on that concerns me. I'm for things like education, health, elderly, infrastructure, veteran benefits, farmers, you know...liberal democrat kinda things. Those "little people" you guys seem to despise so much.

Today's ultra conservative's (the one's driving the ship) seems to prefer spending money on Isreal or other places in the Middle East, or on corporate fatcats, or glutton lawyers (going after democrats) and just about anything that doesn't benefit the American people first hand.

But they both spend money like it's going out of style. Who can deny that?
 
I am for a restricted version of Line Item Veto, where a majority of Congress has to sign off on the pork cuts before a bill is ratified. If you take away Congress's primary way of doing business-which is for politicians to support each other's bills in return for support for their own bills and such (which inevitably creates pork) you need to accompany that change with some other way for politicians to use leverage for/against each other.

For example, a moderate Democrat could go either way on the Patriot Act. A Republican promises to support this Democrat's hundred million dollar roads project in that Democrat's home state if he signs on to the Patriot Act. This is how business is conducted, but if a president can now come along and veto that entire roads project rider bill, then that Democrat gets screwed and has no reliable way to do business anymore.

I want as much pork removed as is possible, but Congress needs to retain some way to do business.

Additionally, I am very hesitant about giving any additional power to the Executive or Judicial branch because those are the two branches where the fewest people control the lives of everyone else. If forced to pick between the three, I will always favor Congress because it is the most accountable to the people. But in this case, I think it is worth it to further empower the Executive branch to cut spending.
 
Hmmmm...that makes a lotta sense Aquapub....

Thanks.:2wave:
 
Navy Pride said:
Really, that surprises me, you lefties usually like to spend like a drunken sailor......
Click to expand...

I voted yes.

NP, uh...can you say 8 trillion dollar debt? That's more than all previous presidents combined.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Mar 2006 at 09:35:07 PM GMT is:

debtiv.gif



The estimated population of the United States is 298,712,780
so each citizen's share of this debt is $27,708.45.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.17 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
Click to expand...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
 
Captain America said:
You're kiddin' right? (Well, except for the drunken sailor part...you may know more about that than I do.;) )

In case you haven't noticed....in regards to spending....nevermind...(why do I bother?:roll: )

Just the same, I am of the opinion that all the politicians, both democRATS or repugnantcans, have no problem whatsoever spending yours or my tax dollars like there is no tomorrow. It WHAT the spend it on that concerns me. I'm for things like education, health, elderly, infrastructure, veteran benefits, farmers, you know...liberal democrat kinda things. Those "little people" you guys seem to despise so much.

Today's ultra conservative's (the one's driving the ship) seems to prefer spending money on Isreal or other places in the Middle East, or on corporate fatcats, or glutton lawyers (going after democrats) and just about anything that doesn't benefit the American people first hand.

But they both spend money like it's going out of style. Who can deny that?
Click to expand...


Yeah right, well time for me to take a walk and cool down.......Have a nice day......:lol:
 
And you have a nice day as well my rightwing friend.:2wave:
 
Do I think that a Line Item Veto would be good for holding down wasteful spending?

Yes.

Do I think that it is Constitutional?

No.

If this president was even remotely concerned with spending growth, he would have vetoed every budget this congress has put before him and had showdowns like the Clinton Administration had with them. Bush obviously isn’t as he has yet to veto anything that has come out of congress. This is nothing but a ploy to help out his sagging poll numbers. The federal budget has grown at an average rate of 8% year over year under Bush (and that does not even include spending on the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan or Katrina), it only averaged 3% year over year under Clinton. Same congress, different presidents.
 
When I think of Mr. Bush and his spending habits I am reminded of a Dorito's commercial. "We'll make more!"

It doesn't seem to bother him in the least that he is spending our children's and grandchildren's money. He has taken rightwing arrogance to a height never seen before. He may be social conservative in terms of forcing their idealogy and oppression and arrogance down the throats of others but he is NOT a fiscal conservative by any measure.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I voted yes.

NP, uh...can you say 8 trillion dollar debt? That's more than all previous presidents combined.



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Click to expand...

I voted yes to.......


Bush has been terrible when it comes to spending but if your boy had got in all things being equal, the deficit would be 16 trillion........Its the lessor of the 2 evils
 
Navy Pride said:
if your boy had got in all things being equal, the deficit would be 16 trillion........Its the lessor of the 2 evils
Click to expand...

It's only speculation at best, but I think the dems would have took the economy downhill as well, all things considered. They too would have had to deal with 9/11, Katrina, etc...... I don't think we'd be in the hole as much as with the current administration though.

But....on the other side of the coin, if the other side maintained the control, I fear abortions would be being sold at the local 7/11 and thong panties would be the uniform of the day at your local high school.

That's a little extreme, I admit, but I'm just trying to drive home a point. So, the lesser of two evils. You could very well be right. Who knows?
 
Navy Pride said:
I voted yes to.......


Bush has been terrible when it comes to spending but if your boy had got in all things being equal, the deficit would be 16 trillion........Its the lessor of the 2 evils
Click to expand...

How so, being that about 90% of our National Debt was incurred under Republican Administrations, I would argue that your assertion has no historical merit at all.

I would challenge anyone to find a more wasteful area of government than defense and all of the defense contracts that result from it. I remember reading a couple of years ago that a recent audit found that the Pentagon had no way at all to account for a trillion dollars of the taxpayers money.

We definitely need a strong defense, but defense spending many times is nothing but an excuse for pork clocked in patriotism. Probably half the weapons programs currently being funded are only still in existence because of some congressman’s job program.
 
aquapub said:
I am for a restricted version of Line Item Veto, where a majority of Congress has to sign off on the pork cuts before a bill is ratified. If you take away Congress's primary way of doing business-which is for politicians to support each other's bills in return for support for their own bills and such (which inevitably creates pork) you need to accompany that change with some other way for politicians to use leverage for/against each other.
Click to expand...

Why? And in particular, why should they feel the need to buy each other's votes with my money? This whole concpet of logrolling is what corrupted the government in the first place.

They want a way to do business? Let'em read the Cosntitution and figure out ways that are inside the law to do it. With less logrolling there might be more discussion of issues.
 
Captain America said:
It's only speculation at best, but I think the dems would have took the economy downhill as well, all things considered. They too would have had to deal with 9/11, Katrina, etc...... I don't think we'd be in the hole as much as with the current administration though.

But....on the other side of the coin, if the other side maintained the control, I fear abortions would be being sold at the local 7/11 and thong panties would be the uniform of the day at your local high school.

That's a little extreme, I admit, but I'm just trying to drive home a point. So, the lesser of two evils. You could very well be right. Who knows?
Click to expand...

You can bet that there would not have been any tax cuts probaly tax increases and that would have sunk the economy further and we would be in a deep recession........

Its really hard to say what Kerry would have done about Afghanistan or Iraq.....I guess it would depend on what day of the week it was.........
 
Navy Pride said:
your comments please:
Click to expand...

I voted yes, but only if it works a certain way.

if the president uses the line-item veto, the congress should have to vote on it again before it becomes law. otherwise too much legislative power is given to the president.
 
I voted no.

One great thing about our congress is that comprimise is required. Suppose you, who are in power, and I, who am not, comprimise on something - you get provision A, I get provision B. Then the pres strikes out provision B.

Something's not right there.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How so, being that about 90% of our National Debt was incurred under Republican Administrations, I would argue that your assertion has no historical merit at all.
Click to expand...

Link please.
 
Captain America said:
Thought you didn't care for polls????:rofl

I think the line item veto allows a president to eliminate some of the pork doesn't it? I'm ALL for that!
Click to expand...


I think that if politicians were forced to read out loud and explain in layman's terms on national tv what each part in the bill did then that might help cut down on pork.The line item veto also sounds like a great idea too.
 
The Pi Pirate said:
I voted no.

One great thing about our congress is that comprimise is required. Suppose you, who are in power, and I, who am not, comprimise on something - you get provision A, I get provision B. Then the pres strikes out provision B.

Something's not right there.
Click to expand...


So what is your solution to get the fat out of bills?
 
jamesrage said:
I think that if politicians were forced to read out loud and explain in layman's terms on national tv what each part in the bill did then that might help cut down on pork.The line item veto also sounds like a great idea too.
Click to expand...

I have long felt that the politicians we elect to represent us should represent us. I think bi-annual "Townhall Meetings" should be mandatory.

All to often they suck up just long enough to get elected and then say to hell with the people who elected them and they go off to do their own thing.
 
Navy Pride said:
your comments please:
Click to expand...


I personally don't believe in Abortion but for medical reasons, yet I believe that every woman has the right to choose concerning her own body.

We need to get riid of the Jerk of president that we have. I use to think he was just stupid. Now I am convinced that he his crafty and is against all americans that makes less than 100,000 dollars a year. Bush is a running dog.
 
dragonslayer said:
I personally don't believe in Abortion but for medical reasons, yet I believe that every woman has the right to choose concerning her own body.

We need to get riid of the Jerk of president that we have. I use to think he was just stupid. Now I am convinced that he his crafty and is against all americans that makes less than 100,000 dollars a year. Bush is a running dog.
Click to expand...

I don't knoiw what that has to do with the line item veto but I can tell you I make about $70K a year in my retirement and the president's tax cuts helped me considerably........

Seems like to me your just another Bush hater using the democrats talking points that the tax cuts were only for the rich........You can knock it off because any informed American is not buying that spin..They see the money in their paycheck that they are getting because of the tax cuts......

You can't spin that.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom