Whose War is it?

[bumblebee]

I thought those of you who keep harping on how much Bush has spent on his war in Iraq should read this...It's Congress spending the money.

FOXNews.com - House Leaders Announce Long-Awaited War Funding Deal - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


Washington — Democratic and GOP leaders in the House announced agreement Wednesday on a long-overdue war funding bill they said President Bush would be willing to sign.

The agreement on the war funding bill, announced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also paves the way for a quick infusion of emergency flood relief for the Midwest, an extension of unemployment payments for the jobless and a big boost in GI Bill college for veterans.

It would also provide about $165 billion to the Pentagon to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for about a year. That's enough time for Bush's successor to set Iraq policy.

"This is an agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan way that I think is acceptable to both most Democrats and most Republicans and to the White House," Boehner said.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the agreement contains several priorities for Democrats in the Senate but stopped short of issuing a direct endorsement, saying Reid needed to consult with his colleagues.

The agreement would require that the Senate would agree to drop most of the more than $10 billion it added last month for programs such as heating subsidies for the poor, wildfire fighting, road and bridge repair and help for the Gulf Coast...

[Tripped1]

errr GI Bill boost. As a vet and a full time student this has my attention.

[SAHTT]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

I thought those of you who keep harping on how much Bush has spent on his war in Iraq should read this...It's Congress spending the money.

FOXNews.com - House Leaders Announce Long-Awaited War Funding Deal - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


Washington — Democratic and GOP leaders in the House announced agreement Wednesday on a long-overdue war funding bill they said President Bush would be willing to sign.

The agreement on the war funding bill, announced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also paves the way for a quick infusion of emergency flood relief for the Midwest, an extension of unemployment payments for the jobless and a big boost in GI Bill college for veterans.

It would also provide about $165 billion to the Pentagon to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for about a year. That's enough time for Bush's successor to set Iraq policy.

"This is an agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan way that I think is acceptable to both most Democrats and most Republicans and to the White House," Boehner said.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the agreement contains several priorities for Democrats in the Senate but stopped short of issuing a direct endorsement, saying Reid needed to consult with his colleagues.

The agreement would require that the Senate would agree to drop most of the more than $10 billion it added last month for programs such as heating subsidies for the poor, wildfire fighting, road and bridge repair and help for the Gulf Coast...

Be careful.. if they find out the the congress creates the laws and it isn't all "bush's fault" no telling the uprising we may have in here. I just want Bush out and Obama in so all my problems can be solved. Because if they aren't.. I'll be the new whiny little bitch to replace all of those that have to find new work when bush leaves.

[SXSMITH]

Libs won't read past the first two words in your link.

"Fox News".

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by SAHTT

Be careful.. if they find out the the congress creates the laws and it isn't all "bush's fault" no telling the uprising we may have in here. I just want Bush out and Obama in so all my problems can be solved. Because if they aren't.. I'll be the new whiny little bitch to replace all of those that have to find new work when bush leaves.

Either I act like I'm 22 or you act like you're 51. But we agree.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by SAHTT

Be careful.. if they find out the the congress creates the laws and it isn't all "bush's fault" no telling the uprising we may have in here. I just want Bush out and Obama in so all my problems can be solved. Because if they aren't.. I'll be the new whiny little bitch to replace all of those that have to find new work when bush leaves.

You are wise way beyond your age.

[flylooper]

Well, I read it. (It was actually an AP release, not Fox.)

This caught my eye.

But the White House and Republicans insisted that House Democrats' offset — a one-half percentage point surcharge on wealthier taxpayers — was unacceptable.

Boehner and Hoyer would not immediately release details, saying the verbal agreement had yet to be written in congressional legalese.

The agreement came just a day after the Bush administration urged Congress to provide $1.8 billion in immediate disaster aid for the Midwest and elsewhere. Congress is likely to add a little more, though details had not been ironed out.

A dozen senators in both parties are pressing to add money for levee repair and help for displaced homeowners, among other pressing needs.

Democrats and governors across the country emerged the victors in a battle with the White House to block new Bush administration rules designed to cut spending on Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled.

Frankly I don't understand what the point of the post is. Congress spends money? Sure. They also approve the spending of money by the executive.

"The President Proposes and Congress Disposes." I think it's an idea found in the Constitution or something.

[SlowGoose]

Originally Posted by SAHTT

I'll be the new whiny little bitch to replace all of those that have to find new work when bush leaves.

There will be a lot of that here and everywhere else I'm sure.

[Gaolee]

Yes, the Congress has to approve the money. The administration put Congress into an impossible position with this war. If they cut off the funding, the troops are completely screwed. What are the going to do, hitch hike home? So, Congress pretty much has to continue funding the troops, and the administration has played political chicken with the troops by refusing to accept any kind of strings attached to continued funding. I would have liked to see the Democrats grow some balls and send dumb'ya a bill with restrictions and let him veto it a couple times. Then the country can see what the GOP and this administration really thinks of the troops- they are cannon fodder for neocon adventures.

So, there you have it. Congress has to keep funding without strings or the troops are screwed. The pinheads running the show in the executive don't care a lick about the troops, and don't want any restrictions on their mismanagement. They will sacrifice the troops without batting an eye if it suits them. Look at McCain's opposition to the GI Bill both Obama and Clinton supported. Is that supporting the troops? Not a chance!

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by flylooper

Well, I read it. (It was actually an AP release, not Fox.)

This caught my eye.



Frankly I don't understand what the point of the post is. Congress spends money? Sure. They also approve the spending of money by the executive.

"The President Proposes and Congress Disposes." I think it's an idea found in the Constitution or something.

Article I, Sections 7 and 8. The Executive Branch has no money to spend, cannot spend any money, unless appropriated by Congress

[Baldrick]

See Gaolee's post above. Puts it into clear perspective. Bushco has played fiscal politics with the lives of our military to get his way. I'm guessing you'd be among the first to cry "They don't support the troops!" if Congress actually did cut funding for the Iraq fiasco. Of course, the best option, the "nuclear option", to borrow a GOP favorite, would be to send war funding bills with strings attached (timetables for troop withdrawal, hard/fast benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve, and so on), over and over again, so GWB is the one between the proverbial rock and hard place. Put the onus on him.

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

See Gaolee's post above. Puts it into clear perspective. Bushco has played fiscal politics with the lives of our military to get his way. I'm guessing you'd be among the first to cry "They don't support the troops!" if Congress actually did cut funding for the Iraq fiasco. Of course, the best option, the "nuclear option", to borrow a GOP favorite, would be to send war funding bills with strings attached (timetables for troop withdrawal, hard/fast benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve, and so on), over and over again, so GWB is the one between the proverbial rock and hard place. Put the onus on him.

here here

[Trash]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

See Gaolee's post above. Puts it into clear perspective. Bushco has played fiscal politics with the lives of our military to get his way. I'm guessing you'd be among the first to cry "They don't support the troops!" if Congress actually did cut funding for the Iraq fiasco. Of course, the best option, the "nuclear option", to borrow a GOP favorite, would be to send war funding bills with strings attached (timetables for troop withdrawal, hard/fast benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve, and so on), over and over again, so GWB is the one between the proverbial rock and hard place. Put the onus on him.

Yesiree. Like what we expected after the 2006 elections. Jellocrats (tm)*






* shah

[Gaolee]

Jellocrats is right. Screw 'em. They only started to come around when a guy who always opposed the fiasco, Obama, looked like he might win the nomination. Reid and Pelosi didn't do anybody any favors.

[Tripped1]

I Pelosi stops walking fast enough Reid's head is going to get stuck in her ass.

...and yes, I'll take political figures that I can't stand for $1000 Alex