Bush uses sixth veto to reject health-labor bill

[Lucky... 0]

By Caren BohanTue Nov 13, 6:26 PM ET
President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs, marking the sixth veto of his presidency and the latest salvo in a fight with congressional Democrats over domestic spending.
Bush signed a separate bill to give the Pentagon about $460 billion for the fiscal year that began on October 1, even though he was disappointed the military bill had less money than he had sought. Even so, the Pentagon would get about $40 billion more than last year, a 9 percent increase.
The White House said the bill to fund labor and human services was bloated and filled with special projects. The $600 billion measure was about $10 billion more than what Bush requested.
Bush and the Democratic-led Congress have been locked in a heated budget battle for months, with each side accusing the other of fiscal irresponsibility.
Democrats who wrested control of Congress last year from Bush's Republican Party campaigned in part on criticisms over the budget deficits that soared on Bush's watch, boosted by spending for the Iraq war.
But Bush tried to turn the tables on Democrats, accusing them of seeking to go on a spending spree and said it would only be a matter of time before they sought higher taxes to pay for it.
"Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card," he said in a speech in New Albany, Indiana. He added he would not hesitate to use his veto pen again.
Democrats defended the labor bill, saying the extra funds were needed for programs like education and research on cancer and other diseases. They said the money was dwarfed by the Iraq war costs and that overall, they are paying for spending increases with belt-tightening elsewhere.
VETO OVERRIDE ATTEMPT SEEN
"The president again vetoed a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the priorities of the American people," said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.
"At the same time, President Bush and his congressional allies demand hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq -- none of it paid for," Pelosi added.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said Bush was "pretending" to protect the budget deficit while "asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq."
Democrats note that while Bush has eagerly wielded his veto pen lately, he did not veto any spending bills in the first six years of his tenure when Republicans controlled Congress.
Bush is now trying to burnish his fiscal credentials with conservatives in his party, many of whom have viewed him as a big spender and contend he could have done more to require budget discipline.
Not all Republicans have welcomed the vetoes. Many joined with Democrats last week to produce the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto of a popular bill to fund water projects.
Democrats are expected to try to override Bush's veto of the labor and health bill this week but may have trouble garnering enough Republican votes to push the bill through over his objections.
The Pentagon bill will pay for weapons and soldiers' salaries but does not include $196 billion more Bush wants for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Bush hoped some war funds would have been included in the Pentagon's larger funding bill.
Instead, House Democrats are expected to vote this week on a $50 billion war down payment. They also want to attach conditions Bush opposes, including timetables for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Bush said Congress should not go home for the Christmas holiday without making sure troops have funding.
"I understand some of them in Congress didn't agree with my decision, that's fine," he said. "But whatever their position on the war is we should be able to agree that our troops deserve the full support of those of us in Washington D.C."
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Richard Cowan in Washington; Editing by Rick Cowan and Eric Beech)

____________________________________________________________

What a fucking coward, chops any social programs he can to divert money for the war. This egomanic wanted to be a war president even if there was no need for a war. WTF were you Bush voters thinking?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Yea, I agree, it's great to strike down programs that help people, I mean, we are here to further the corporate agenda, people just suck, I agree.

[akarunway 1]

"President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs"----------------------------------------------------------Imagine that.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

"President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs"----------------------------------------------------------Imagine that.

He didn't veto the bill giving a $40Billion increase in defense spending. And we already outspend just about all the rest of the world combined on defense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

I love how you twist the context and reasons to support your rants

But then, you are the only one that sees and knows what is realy going on now arent you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

He didn't veto the bill giving a $40Billion increase in defense spending. And we already outspend just about all the rest of the world combined on defense.

Well, since we have alienated the rest of the world combined, we need to defend ourselves from it, don't we?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Yea, I agree, it's great to strike down programs that help people, I mean, we are here to further the corporate agenda, people just suck, I agree.

I think with a little work, Congress can make some adjustments by reducing the amount of spending to a sum the President can live with. Then all those with their hands out can get all the money and pet projects they have become to believe they are intitled to.

[kelpdiver 2]

> Democrats defended the labor bill, saying the extra funds were needed for programs like education and research on cancer and other diseases. They said the money was dwarfed by the Iraq war costs and that overall, they are paying for spending increases with belt-tightening elsewhere.

If the Democrats want to spend more money on domestic concerns, great. First they need to cut down those Iraq costs. They are in control of Congress and have this ability, if not the will to do it.

Deficit spending by them is just as bad as deficit spending by George.

[pop 0]

Quote

"...was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card,"

Sounds like the idiot is talking about himself.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[akarunway 1]

"First they need to cut down those Iraq costs." --------------------------------------------------------------------Now you just labeled yourself as unpatriotic or treasonous. I'll bet you don't care about the soldiers either.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

"First they need to cut down those Iraq costs." --------------------------------------------------------------------Now you just labeled yourself as unpatriotic or treasonous. I'll bet you don't care about the soldiers either.

That's right. If you REALLY want to show your patriotism you have to take money from a few children, drive to a remote area and throw it out of the back of a truck

[marks2065 0]

it isn't the education and taining he was striking down. i haven't read the bill but i bet there was alot of pet projects thrown in that cost a good percentage of the total $ being sought and that is why it was vetoed. the presidents for a long time have been wanting a line item veto but can't seem to get it. when any president veto's a bill the people hear shit like the kids won't get school lunches or some shit like that.if a congressman wants school lunches for some kids anotherone wants a new library in their name or a pond next to a highway or some shit like that they put those things together to get them passed. i would be interested how many little pet projects are berried in that bill. this is not party specific they all do it and i'm glad it was vetoed. maybe they will cut a couple unneeded things then it will pass.
if they want to cut spending just deport all illegals and cut off welfare to the lazy people and that would save a couple billion

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

if they want to cut spending just deport all illegals and cut off welfare to the lazy people and that would save a couple billion

we could save even more by not starting wars wherever & whenever possible & not trying to garrison the entire planet.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[marks2065 0]

what do you think the cleanup cost of being attacked here in the us would have cost if we let things go ? how many here could have died from a few more 911 type attacks ? 4000 troops in 7 years compared to how many of us here ? maybe one of them could have been you or me. maybe this war was a good thing. good thing we will never know what would have happened if the war didn't happen.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

if they want to cut spending just deport all illegals and cut off welfare to the lazy people and that would save a couple billion

we could save even more by not starting wars wherever & whenever possible & not trying to garrison the entire planet.

Alright you avoided his point by invoking a war rant. Usually seen when someone makes a point you cant counter. Dam inteligent

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

what do you think the cleanup cost of being attacked here in the us would have cost if we let things go ? how many here could have died from a few more 911 type attacks ? 4000 troops in 7 years compared to how many of us here ? maybe one of them could have been you or me. .

So why didn't we continue to focus our efforts on Al Quaeda then, since they were the ones who attacked us? Noooo, Bush had to pull like 90% of the forces out for his Iraq Adventure.

At least if we're going to fight, we should remain focused on the guilty party. Not go off starting whole new wars. A war against terrorists should be fought with an eye towards WINNING it and CONCLUDING it. You cannot win a war until you bring it to a close. To widen the war, and foment a new crop of terrorists in a different country, is moving in the wrong direction.

And in terms of getting other countries to unite against terrorists, it's important to keep the lines clearly drawn between the good guys (us) and the terrorists. Initiating wars of aggression in other countries makes us look like shit & muddies the waters.

Then we gotta waste MORE $ and blood when the blowback arising from our new adventure happens.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

how many here could have died from a few more 911 type attacks ? 4000 troops in 7 years compared to how many of us here ?

That's 4000 in 4.5 years - no gross rounding to improve your metrics. And let's not ignore all of the non fatal casualties which is far greater.

Best response, made already, points out that the cause of 911 is not in Iraq.

[marks2065 0]

the bottom line is both parties are thieves and will continue to take our money. the differences that i see between the parties is the dem's like to hide the money collecting from the general public by taxing the corporations.
that's fine i just raise my prices or lay someone off, doesn't hurt me only the consumer.
the rep's like to tax it staight to the people. that's fine i just keep my prices the same and don't lay any off.
the difference that matters to me is what the money is spent on. the rep's give alot of money to companies that employ people, build things ect. generally hard working people.
the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
i for one like that people that work hard favor well in the rep's rule and i don't like how the lazy unmotivated seem to do well in the dem's rule.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

the bottom line is both parties are thieves and will continue to take our money. the differences that i see between the parties is the dem's like to hide the money collecting from the general public by taxing the corporations.
that's fine i just raise my prices or lay someone off, doesn't hurt me only the consumer.
the rep's like to tax it staight to the people. that's fine i just keep my prices the same and don't lay any off.
the difference that matters to me is what the money is spent on. the rep's give alot of money to companies that employ people, build things ect. generally hard working people.
the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
i for one like that people that work hard favor well in the rep's rule and i don't like how the lazy unmotivated seem to do well in the dem's rule.

Are you really trying to blame Enron on the dems? Let's see. For starters they were based in Houston. I can't find the political affiliation of the BOD's but let's start w/ THIS guy>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040719/greider "Ken Lay finally took the "perp walk" down in Houston with his hands cuffed behind his back--an inconvenience for him and also for his old Texas buddy, George W. Bush. " Gimme a fuckin break man.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

the rep's like to tax it staight to the people. that's fine i just keep my prices the same and don't lay any off.
the difference that matters to me is what the money is spent on. the rep's give alot of money to companies that employ people, build things ect. generally hard working people.
the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.

You're still sticking to this dubious Enron/DNC connection?

Giving money to the people means they'll keep spending, which means sales, which means happy companies. Giving the money direct to the company is great for those companies and the shareholders, which may or may not trickle down.

Since the republicans don't want to tax, but still spend, we run a deficit which results in a weak dollar. Favors some companies and their employees, not others, hurts consumers.

of course, these are all black and white generalizations in a very grey world.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
.

Must be the reason Ken Lay's political contributions were:
REPUBLICAN:91% DEMOCRAT:2% OTHER 7%.

In other words, you are simply wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
.

Must be the reason Ken Lay's political contributions were:
REPUBLICAN:91% DEMOCRAT:2% OTHER 7%.

In other words, you are simply wrong.

Wow, NOW you think who someone contributes too counts. Dam, when did you change your mind on that line of thought??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
.

Must be the reason Ken Lay's political contributions were:
REPUBLICAN:91% DEMOCRAT:2% OTHER 7%.

In other words, you are simply wrong.

Wow, NOW you think who someone contributes too counts. Dam, when did you change your mind on that line of thought??

Would you care to rephrase that in English? It must be that twist in your bood that's distracting you

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the dem's seem to like to give money to programs like welfare, companies like enron, and ect.
.

Must be the reason Ken Lay's political contributions were:
REPUBLICAN:91% DEMOCRAT:2% OTHER 7%.

In other words, you are simply wrong.

Wow, NOW you think who someone contributes too counts. Dam, when did you change your mind on that line of thought??

Would you care to rephrase that in English? It must be that twist in your bood that's distracting you

Just enjoying you trying to out flop Mrs Bill Clinton.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln