posted
Just what you need. Indecisive firefighters.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
hey, as long as they don't boycott me if i ever catch on fire, they can be as indecisive as they want to be.
IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, it's the Democrats fault. Considering that they control the House where these bills start, they must be bad, bad people. Oh, wait, they don't control the House.
And I'm sure that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Bush wanting to look "engaged" with the economy after the much criticized, pre-lunch, photo-op economic meeting at Waco. Considering the fact that Bush signed the bill in the first place, I'm sure there is absolutely no politics being played by the White House.
quote: It's Congress's fault: "What [the firefighters] ought to be upset about is the fact that Congress tried to tie my hands. They said, 'You've got to spend $5 billion or none of the $5 billion.'" The clear sense of that remark is that the president would have supported the money for firefighters. But Congress forced his hand by lumping it in with a lot of other spending.
Unfortunately, this contradicts what the president said a mere three days ago. Back on Tuesday the president said that along with axing the $5.1 billion he would ask Congress to send him another bill to reinstate funds for "truly pressing needs and priorities" which he said were $200 million for AIDS prevention and $250 million to be divided between aid for Israel and aid for the Palestinians. Those were the priorities the president did want to spend on. The money for firemen wasn't one of them.
The whole budget cut stunt was just a snap decision to save the Economic Forum. They hadn't thought it through. Now they're in damage control. The president has to make stuff up. It's not a pretty picture.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
He's complaining that his assumptions contradict each other?
Considering that they control the House where these bills start
And riders can't be attached elsewhere?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey Jay... did you notice that if you add up everything in that list of cut funding, it only comes to 1.9 billion dollars?
Where did the other 3.8 billion dollars go?
I smell bacon...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
1. it's a 5.1 billion "contingency" bill in an overall 28.9 billion dollar spending bill. Was the contingency met?
quote:Appropriators sought to force the administration's hand on the package, which is mostly made up of money that Bush did not request, by designating it an "all or nothing" item.
The designation forces the White House to either declare the entire $5.1 billion an emergency need and release all the money or to reject the entire package outright and kill projects popular with members of Congress, including leading Republicans.
So he killed some spending for popular projects in his party in order to prevent greater waste.
We used to call that principled behavior.
quote:During the long debate on the supplemental, the administration complained that Congress was trying to appropriate money that could not be spent by the end of the 2002 fiscal year and that many agencies still had money left from the $40 billion that Congress appropriated on an emergency basis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
True and true. some 40% of the OLD 'emergency funds' bill ramains unspent.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
seems that most people are too wrapped up in bashing bush to really care about the specifics of the actual issues.
IP: Logged
quote:The designation forces the White House to either declare the entire $5.1 billion an emergency need and release all the money or to reject the entire package outright and kill projects popular with members of Congress, including leading Republicans.
Booo Democrats!!
See, that's the problem with your initial argument, you couldn't just say 'Congress did this' or 'Congress did that'. Nooooooooooo, it's them Demecrats. Cause only Demecrats do that.
And speaking of other principled behavior, I've yet to see too much of that from the present person in the White House. Simply put, principled behavior would have had him veto the bill in the first place. Rather, he waited and killed the bill to be engaged. Or, really to apprear to be engaged. Cause even though he isn't, he has to look like he is.
Hence the meeting over brunch in Waco.
This administration has two things on its mind: tax cut for the rich (its domestic policy) and invading Iraq (its foreign policy). Other than that it is overwhelmed, unfocused and reaching.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm... help the economy on one hand; protect the country/world by removing a major threat, while simultaneously liberating several million people on the other hand.
Problem?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Liberating, that's a good one. Cracked the dusty shell of my too-still face, that did.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I'm pissing my pants with excitement here. Let us see...
Dubya'd like that, wouldn't he? Deposing governments of independent (!) nations -- oh, I forgot, villain states (beautiful propaganda by the way) -- without violating international law. Pesky litigation. Declarations of war are the only legal means he has to accomplish this. Way to create a precedent, eh?
But, W isn't prepared to formally declare war on any sovereign power. He'd have to justify his actions in front of those pesky tribunals. Can anyone say "Afghanistan"? This is exactly the precedent Dubya has proactively steered the United States towards.
The real danger to our GOD-GIVEN CIVIL LIBERTIES doesn't come from second and third world countries conveniently labelled as the biggest threat global order has ever faced, but from one superpower in particular which unilaterally withdraws itself from international treaties and instigates armed conflicts without legitimate mandate, yet continuously claims the moral high ground.
Very interesting choice of words, Omega.
[/tangent]
I have more to say on this subject... just not here.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
the average Afghan seems to be a hell of a lot happier now. to me, that matters a hell of a lot more than unilaterally withdrawing from treaties, many of which were a bad idea to begin with. you also seem to be conveniently forgetting that the UK also sent troops to Afghanistan. not quite so unilateral when its an international effort, bozo. and you are forgetting that the US President has fairly wide ranging powers now a days when it comes to the miltary. and you forgot that he had approval from the American people and congress. you also seem to have forgotten that a formal war couldn't be declared since the Taliban were not recognized as a sovereign nation by the US. and you forgot that Al Qaida, which was under the aegis of a non sovereign "government", WAS and IS a very real threat to the United States. you also seem to have forgotten that no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment. you also seem to have forgotten that the Afghani people were enslaved by a group they didn't want. you seem to have forgotten that toppling the Taliban and capturing and killing Al Qaida was the right thing to do. did i also mention that you forgot that it was an International effort and that no Sovereign Nation was attacked since the Taliban was not a legitimate government?
you seem to have forgotten all the important things. no surprise, there.
p.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
