Bush: Don't Ask me about the economy, I got a 'B' in Econ 101

smhatahy · 09-21-2007, 01:39 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-econ101/

JerryLove · 09-21-2007, 06:27 AM

He also believe he got an "A" in "fiscal responsability"; which (in addition to obviously being tied to economics) seems silly in light of the overnight destruction of the busget surplus he inhereted.

Nate · 09-22-2007, 02:30 PM

Not that Bush is an economic mastermind, but it's not that smart to trust people who think they can compute the mathematical "odds" of a recession occurring, either.

normajean777 · 09-22-2007, 04:35 PM

Not that he supremely controls spending as a president. . . I think its alright that he joke about stuff like that, its not like he can run again.

Peatrical · 09-25-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

He also believe he got an "A" in "fiscal responsability"; which (in addition to obviously being tied to economics) seems silly in light of the overnight destruction of the busget surplus he inhereted.

Exactly.... I think he really must be delusional.

JerryLove · 09-25-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Not that he supremely controls spending as a president. . . I think its alright that he joke about stuff like that, its not like he can run again.

He can veto spending. He didn't veto a single spending bill until (in his second term) stem-cell research.

normajean777 · 09-26-2007, 10:03 PM

Personally I think the president needs a line-item veto. The way bills are, with all the addons and such, the pages at the back (not that I've seen them, I've just heard). He needs to be able to pick everything apart and approve the real good things, and leaving the crap.

Bryan · 09-26-2007, 11:04 PM

i thought he could do a line-item veto on spending bills?

JerryLove · 09-27-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Personally I think the president needs a line-item veto. The way bills are, with all the addons and such, the pages at the back (not that I've seen them, I've just heard). He needs to be able to pick everything apart and approve the real good things, and leaving the crap.

Cause there's no chance at all that he'll pear out the good things and leave the crap in?

So how is it that the majority of Congress can regularly make bad budgeting decisions but you believe that the President never will?

You would hamstring the Legislative branch so badly that you'd all but make a dictator. Why not just go the other way. Have the president write the legislation and Congres approve/deny?

normajean777 · 09-27-2007, 10:46 PM

Good point it could. But that thing does happen all too often. There is alot of crap added to every bill.

I liked the "Simpsons" representation/ viewpoint on the system. Krusty gets elected in Springfield, when he promises to reroute air traffic. He ends up paperclipping his bill to a more popular one that gets passed. The end, his hidden agenda filled. Of course thats only a cartoon, so don't fight it.

But still as far as I've read (in various magazines, by authors who support the line-item), it happens far too much, and the Pres feels that his hands are tied because he can't veto the good legislation, just to stop a billion dollars of frivoulous spending. That frivoulous spending adds up to an enormous sum of money that basically fills the goals and agendas of lobbyists, and whoever else has an interest in it.

JerryLove · 09-28-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

But still as far as I've read (in various magazines, by authors who support the line-item), it happens far too much, and the Pres feels that his hands are tied because he can't veto the good legislation, just to stop a billion dollars of frivoulous spending. That frivoulous spending adds up to an enormous sum of money that basically fills the goals and agendas of lobbyists, and whoever else has an interest in it.

You would think with what we pay all of these people, they could be more mature.

Of course, when I'm king (and setting up the representitive democracy I'll leave for posterity), I resolve this by giving the rold of making laws to administrative committies hired by congress which have only limited scopes of operation; and further by requiring scoping on all bills.

Obviously, the correct thing to do is to 1) actually read the bills. 2) Have the maturity to not knee-jerk the popular ones (maybe it's actually a lack of lazyness that's needed), and 3) to veto any bill with any unacceptable art.

Bush is happy neough to veto a war spending bill that has some part he doesn't like; why not veto a lesser bill with pork-barrell? If he did that consistantly, they likely would stop sending them.

Danny · 09-28-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Personally I think the president needs a line-item veto. The way bills are, with all the addons and such, the pages at the back (not that I've seen them, I've just heard). He needs to be able to pick everything apart and approve the real good things, and leaving the crap.

Clinton tried this during his administration. The Supreme Court almost immediately struck it down, saying that it had the practical effect of making the president a legislator. The Constitution provides that every bill must be signed by the president, or sent back to Congress with the president's reasons for not signing. Congress must consider his reasons and either draft a new version of the bill, or put the bill to another vote. If the bill is approved by a 2/3 majority, it goes into effect without requiring the president's signature. To establish a line item veto would require a Constitutional amendment; and I have to agree with Jerry, that would be disastrous for our checks-and-balances system.

Consider, for example, the partial-birth abortion ban. Some congressmen didn't vote for it originally because it didn't include an adequate "life and health of the mother" exception. Imagine an alternate version of the bill also goes before Congress which includes said exception, and that bill is approved while the one which did not include the exception is defeated. Now imagine that the president can simply sign this bill into law, but simultaneously nix the exception that Congress voted for. The president would effectively be nullifying the votes of all those congressmen who wanted the exception. This is a supremely bad idea. If the president doesn't like the exception, then he can send the bill back and ask Congress to change it. If Congress believes, by a 2/3 majority, that the bill is good as it is, they can vote it into law without a presidential signature. Otherwise, the bill will need to be redrafted or else it's defeated. I don't see how this is a bad way of going about things. It allows the president to check Congress, and allows Congress to supersede him if they have a strong enough majority.