|
5/23 |
2007/8/3-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47523 Activity:low |
8/3 http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343 Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President \_ The Republicans support the war and the Democrats do not. That is not really news. \_ "This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats--some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq--expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue." \_ So we agree. The Democrats are upset at Congress for not taking stronger action against the war and the Republicans are upset at Congress for taking action against the war. \_ How many are upset that the Democrats ran on a platform of cleaning up corruption in DC and not only did nothing to clean it up but went out of their way to make it worse? \_ Show me how it's worse. Then show me how the Dems made it so. \_ Because they're doing the exact same thing with earmarks but are also hypocritical liars about it. \_http://www.commonblog.com/story/2007/2/2/155119/1962 \_ What do you have against the Ethics Reform Bill? At least it is a step in the right direction. \_ Nothing except the fact they left so many holes in it they shouldn't have bothered. With control of Congress and a President who will sign it, they could have done a real reform bill but they're all so addicted to giving away other people's money to buy campaign funds they'll never do real reform. It is just a PR bill so in 2008 they can say they cleaned up DC like they promised, meanwhile having filled their pockets with your cash. \_ Bush would never sign real campaign finance reform. The GOP sucks at the teat of big money. \_ Of course he wouldn't. It was never sent to his desk, duh. Of course the GOP requires big money. Hint: so do the Dems. I find this whole "my guys are angels and your guys are devils" line of non-reasoning both amusing and somewhat sad at the same time. Try some critical reasoning skills before posting in the future. \_ Are you the same guy who said "did nothing to make it better but went out of the way to make it worse." If so, you are a hypocrite. If not, no one was talking to you. \_ There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about saying the Dems are hypocrites on the issue. I've always been very consistent on the motd: both parties suck equally. Party politics sucks. Your pet party is no better than the opposition party. Deal. \_ Nope. The GOP has been more corrupt this last six years than the Democrats have ever been. The two parties are not exactly the same and you are just a cynic with no idea or hope to improve things. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and whine. Learn to make some positive change and maybe someone will pay attention to you. \_ You're either ignorant or blind. Both parties have been corrupt, robbing the tax payers, stealing elections, and serving themselves first and foremost for far longer than anyone here has been alive. I'm not here to 'make positive change' nor am I 'sitting on the sidelines'. I reject your ridiculous and damaging two party scam system. It is not a mindless "our guy" or "your guy" choice. So tell me oh great bringer of justice and wisdom, what have you done to make positive change? \_ For one thing, I was one of the people that circulated petitions and then got endorsements from the Democrats, Republicans and Greens for a campaign finance reform initiative on the SF city ballot, one that passed by 80%+ of the vote. http://www.csua.org/u/jak More recently, I have joined Common Cause. And if you are who I am pretty sure you are, it is kind of amusing your sudden conversion to independent. Weren't you posting pro-war Freeper links not that long ago? \_ I not only have never posted freeper links, I think the freepers are just as stupid as their counterparts at dailykos. So, no. \_ This Dem is angry at the Dems for not killing the Farm Bill. I'm angry with the vetoing President and the filibustering Republicans for everything else. \_ Bush has barely vetoed or even threatened to veto much of anything compared to most Presidents. Both parties have abused the Senate rules to make almost every vote require 60 votes to pass anything. This is all pot, kettle, black. \_ Bush's own party had controlled both houses for the majority of his time in office. I have no actual numbers, but I'd bet that his veto/threat pace this session outstrips many other presidents. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-05-vetoes_N.htm There's some numbers. Fuck off with your kettles. \_ "Fuck off"? Childish. Ok, so where in this article does it say Bush vetoed or even threatened to veto more bills than any other President or even any particular President? You've added absolutely nothing to this but you have shown you're immature and not too bright. I also see you entirely ignored my point about abuse of Senate rules by both parties which is what PKB was a reference to. Have a nice evening. |
5/23 |
|
zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343 Released: August 01, 2007 UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; A majority (60%) said they do not trust the president's judgment when it comes to the war, while 38% say they have faith in his military decisions. Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse - only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war. This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats - some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq - expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue. The online survey was conducted July 13-16, 2007, and included 7,590 respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/- 11 percentage points. To best show support for the troops, 42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support. Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 - a plan favored by 49% of Americans. Slightly more than half (54%) believe the US should set a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and 55% believe the US should begin the phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of this year. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that funds the war in Iraq that also sets a date to begin withdrawing US troops, but 52% would disagree with a presidential veto, while 44% would approve. More than half (55%) believe if the US withdraws from Iraq that it will be considered a defeat, while 41% disagree. Half of Americans (51%) believe the presence of US troops in Iraq incites anti-US sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack within the United States. But 44% believe the US troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the US does not have to fight terrorists here at home. Overall, slightly more than half (55%) said they oppose the war while 44% say they support it. While the vast majority of Democrats are in opposition to the war (93%), slightly more than half of independents (55%) and just 14% of Republicans take the same stance. Self-described conservatives (87%) and very conservatives (93%) show strong support for the war, but support among moderates (25%) is significantly less. Dissatisfaction with how the war in Iraq is being handled is also considerable among past or current members of the military and their families - nearly three in four (71%) give the president negative ratings on his handling of the war and than half (54%) said they don't trust the President's judgment when it comes to the Iraq war. Nearly half (47%) say they lack confidence in Bush's ability as Commander in Chief - 41% said they have no confidence in him at all. The vast majority (96%) also have a negative view of how Congress has handled the war, but there is disagreement about what Congress should do to support the troops. While half said Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, 29% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding and 16% believe Congress should cut all funding for the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. Those with military ties are split over setting a timeline for withdrawal - 48% would favor withdrawal but 50% would oppose such a plan. There is a similar split when asked if the US should begin the phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year - 50% agree while 46% disagree. Slightly more than half (57%) believe withdrawal from Iraq would be considered a defeat, but 38% disagree with that perspective. Two in five (40%) favor a proposal by Congress to continue finding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops by the spring of 2008. Half (51%) would support a Presidential veto of a bill that funds the war by sets a timeline for withdrawing US troops, although nearly as many (46%) would oppose a veto. Those with military ties mirror the feelings of Americans overall. While half (51%) believe US troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the US does not have to fight the terrorists domestically, nearly as many (45%) believe the presence of US troops in Iraq incites anti-US sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack here at home. Bush also gets low ratings in dealing with veterans - two-thirds (67%) give Bush negative ratings for his performance in providing adequate health care for the veterans who have returned home from the ward in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among those who have or are currently serving in the military and their families, nearly as many agree (62%), while just 30% believe Bush has done a favorable job of providing health care for veterans. |
www.commonblog.com/story/2007/2/2/155119/1962 the $463 billion spending measure the House passed 286 to 140 last Wednesday. Leaders from both parties courageously agreed to remove all earmarks! Earmarks, or special provisions that set aside money for specific purposes, have been used in recent years to funnel billions of tax dollars toward pet projects and special interests. This measure replaces the temporary budget that had been in place since last year, when Congress failed to pass 9 out of the 11 necessary budget bills. DS This year, many new congressmen came to office promising to control earmarks and special interest giveaways, and it is very encouraging to see them sticking to their word. We hope the Senate follows suit when it votes on the bill in the coming weeks. |
www.csua.org/u/jak -> www.consumerwatchdog.org/advocacy/fs/?postId=3530&pageTitle=Taxpayer+Protection+Amendment Taxpayer Protection Amendment What It Is The Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA) prevents a conflict of interest between public officials and those with whom these officials do business. Specifically, the TPA prohibits a public official from receiving campaign donations, gifts or employment from anyone benefiting from the official's discretionary actions (ie awarding public funds or assets such as a city contract, special tax break, or land zoning change). The TPA forces a public official to represent the interests of the public and not the special interests of a potential contributor. When and Where the TPA was on the ballot The TPA passed overwhelmingly in Santa Monica with 58% of the vote, 59% in Vista and 82% in San Francisco in November 2000. Voters in Pasadena and Claremont approved the measure with 60% and 55% of the vote, respectively, in March 2001. The TPA does not prohibit the giving of donations or other favors. It prohibits an official from taking money, gifts or jobs from anybody that the official has voted to give one of the above benefits. The prohibition on who the official cannot take money from extends to major stockholders and owners of companies or organizations that the official votes to give one of the above benefits. The measure is in force even if the individual or group does not ultimately gain the contract or special benefit. A "public official" is any elected or appointed public official acting in an official capacity . It also applies to an official of a redevelopment agency, or any other public agency, whether within or without the territorial jurisdiction of the City and County either as a representative or appointee of the City and County. Our law covers only those officials who make a discretionary decision to award one of the above benefits to an individual or group. How long does the prohibition on accepting contributions last? The prohibition begins on the date that the official votes to approve the public benefit and ends no later than 1 one year after the expiration of the term of office that the official is serving at the time the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit; The City and County shall provide any person applying or competing for a benefit (as listed above) with written notice of the provisions of this measure and the future limitations it imposes. Any knowing and willful violation of this measure by a public official constitutes a criminal misdemeanor offense. A finding of liability shall subject the public official to the following civil remedies: 1 restitution of any money or thing of value received; A civil action may be brought by any resident of the City and County. Several individuals and organizations including Ralph Nader, the Sierra Club and the good government group California Common Cause. The TPA is sponsored by the Oaks Project, an all-volunteer citizens group trained in practical political skills. These volunteers gathered 100% of the over 67,000 signatures needed to place this measure on the ballot in five cities across California. |
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-05-vetoes_N.htm Print | By David Jackson, USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- President Bush, who has vetoed only three bills, has made twice as many veto threats in 2007 than in any other year of his presidency. Facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for the first time, Bush or his aides threatened 48 vetoes through Friday compared with a previous high of 22 bills for all of 2003, according to statements of administration policy submitted by the Office of Management and Budget. Bush or his advisers have threatened to veto nine of 12 appropriations bills approved in the House of Representatives. White House officials say the increased number of veto threats is because of irresponsible legislation coming from the Democrats. "We have to be a check on bad policies coming out of Congress," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. Some conservatives have questioned Bush's commitment to fiscal discipline, noting -- as the Heritage Foundation did in a March report -- that federal spending increased 23% after inflation from 2001 to 2006. Bush did not veto any appropriations bills passed by Republican Congresses, which included hikes for defense, homeland security, entitlements, education and thousands of special-interest items called earmarks that are tacked onto spending bills at lawmakers' requests. Renault in Casablanca, who feigns shock that there is gambling in Rick's Cafe, said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and author of Impostor: How George W Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. "He's suddenly 'shocked, shocked' to find out there's all this pork-barrel spending in these bills," Bartlett said. Bush's veto strategy "is the only card they've really got to play if they are indeed interested in restraining government spending," says Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. That has been "an open question" in the past, he added, but now the threats are aimed at "Democratic bills." "He dislikes Democrats more than he likes big government," Slivinski said. Bush has made no secret of his desire to curb spending in Democratic bills. "The bunch now running Congress wants to return to the tax-and-spend policies of the past," Bush told the American Legislative Exchange Council last month. "That's why I plan on using my veto to keep your taxes low." Bush vetoed his first spending bill May 1, not because of spending levels but because the supplemental budget bill contained a timeline for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Democrats removed that provision, and Bush signed the bill. That, Fratto said, shows the effectiveness of a presidential veto. The two other vetoes of Bush's presidency dealt with proposals to expand federal research of embryonic stem cells. Democrats called the veto strategy needlessly confrontational. "I'm not sure if the president is trying to change the subject from Iraq or just spoiling for a fight to score political points with his (political) base," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Dealing with a Democratic Congress is "a new experience for him," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "This is all about negotiation," she says, noting that Democrats and the White House are only 07% apart when it comes to spending. Democrats, she says, want more for education, border security and veterans' health benefits. That less-than-1% difference is a huge number, Fratto says, and covers programs that will grow bigger. He also disputes conservatives who say Bush spent too much, attributing higher spending to the needs of homeland security and national defense after 9/11. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. Conversation guidelines: USA TODAY welcomes your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Keep the conversation appropriate for interested readers across the map. |