President vetoes pork-laden farm bill, Congress rushes to override

The topic says it all- Congress is falling all over itself to override the President's veto just hours after he signed it. The House has already voted with all but just a few Democrats and roughly half the Republicans voting to override and the Senate may act shortly.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm really impressed by how quickly Congress can get something done win it comes to pandering and handing out our money to ensure their re-elections. Good thing we put the Democrats in charge to put a stop to all this. :dizzy2:

For those who don't know here is some background on the bill:
US Farm Bill will anger the world
and a news release from Citizens Against Government Waste.

Isn't this like the first time Bush has vetoed a spending bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The topic says it all- Congress is falling all over itself to override the President's veto just hours after he signed it. The House has already voted with all but just a few Democrats and roughly half the Republicans voting to override and the Senate may act shortly.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm really impressed by how quickly Congress can get something done win it comes to pandering and handing out our money to ensure their re-elections. Good thing we put the Democrats in charge to put a stop to all this. :dizzy2:

For those who don't know here is some background on the bill:
US Farm Bill will anger the world
and a news release from Citizens Against Government Waste.

---

This says a lot about the Republicans in Congress.

Goody.

Grr... This is a classic example of why the US government is so pathetic at the moment. Bush actually does something really smart for once, and congress overrides him anyways. :dizzy2: But hey, Xiahou, shouldn't this be a reason for you to be falling all over Obama, since he's not taking payment from lobbyists to uphold such ludicrous agendas?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:wink:

But seriously, we need to ferret out these special interests in gov't right now. They're no longer serving their purpose, and are bogging down government even more than ever.

Yes, the Democrats were supposed to stop all this special interest pandering.. :laugh4:

Barack Obama couldn't wait to waste the taxpayers money, while John McCain broke from the "me too" Republicans and voted against this travesty.

It's funny that they are trying to portray McCain as an extension of Bush, while Barack Obama doesn't even try to hide the fact that he will increase government and spending.

This is what we have to look forward to. Even bigger government, more wasteful spending, and a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes, the Democrats were supposed to stop all this special interest pandering.. :laugh4:

Barack Obama couldn't wait to waste the taxpayers money, while John McCain broke from the "me too" Republicans and voted against this travesty.

It's funny that they are trying to portray McCain as an extension of Bush, while Barack Obama doesn't even try to hide the fact that he will increase government and spending.

This is what we have to look forward to. Even bigger government, more wasteful spending, and a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

---

Since when was stopping all special interests a democratic platform?:inquisitive: Obama's actually running on it because he HASN'T taken any of their money. Hillary, on the other hand, has taken loads from special interests as well as McCain over the years.

True, Obama doesn't hide the fact that government expenditures will rise under his presidency. Does that make it any worse than Republicans who continue raising expenditures while lying through their teeth about being 'fiscally conservative'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes, the Democrats were supposed to stop all this special interest pandering.. :laugh4:

Barack Obama couldn't wait to waste the taxpayers money, while John McCain broke from the "me too" Republicans and voted against this travesty.

It's funny that they are trying to portray McCain as an extension of Bush, while Barack Obama doesn't even try to hide the fact that he will increase government and spending.

This is what we have to look forward to. Even bigger government, more wasteful spending, and a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

---

No to the bolded, but yes to the first two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Since when was stopping all special interests a democratic platform?:inquisitive: Obama's actually running on it because he HASN'T taken any of their money. Hillary, on the other hand, has taken loads from special interests as well as McCain over the years.

True, Obama doesn't hide the fact that government expenditures will rise under his presidency. Does that make it any worse than Republicans who continue raising expenditures while lying through their teeth about being 'fiscally conservative'?

---

No, but the fact that Republicans are doing it doesn't make it acceptable.

:laugh4: I'm always surprised anyone tries to make this kind of nonsense into some sort of partisan issue, when it's quite clear nigh-on every single one of those politicians is a crook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

This says a lot about the Republicans in Congress.

---

When they had the majority, I think even fewer would've voted against it. There's a core of real conservatives in Congress somewhere- it's just to bad that they're derided even by the very party that supposedly stands for limited government. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

:laugh4: I'm always surprised anyone tries to make this kind of nonsense into some sort of partisan issue, when it's quite clear nigh-on every single one of those politicians is a crook.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

:laugh4: I'm always surprised anyone tries to make this kind of nonsense into some sort of partisan issue, when it's quite clear nigh-on every single one of those politicians is a crook.

---

Can I get an amen?!?! :applause:

A politician? Buying votes and donations, with subsidies? In our American Congress? Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

This is not an R/D issue. Hell, more than half the Republicans voted for the spending bill and for the override. At best, you can claim it as an individual issue... but what does McCain lose by voting against it? Think about it... whether he wins the election in November or not, he's not going to run for reelction in the Senate. And even if he was, last I checked, Arizona was anything but a farm state.

Obama in the meantime is from Illinois. If he voted against a farm bill, they'd recall him, in the midst of presidential election!!! :laugh4:

I think it's pathetic and disgusting. My only hope now is that the WTO comes to the rescue (did I actually just say that? :drama1:)

Quote:

---

last I checked, Arizona was anything but a farm state.

---

But it could be with enough subsidies .:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But it could be with enough subsidies .:laugh4:

---

LOL. And at 92 billion bucks a year, Ariz. Agriculture is nothing to sneeze at. There really is more there than cactus and tumbleweeds.

Xiahou, you are quite a politician yourself. Go figure.

First, you introduce the Farm Bill through a totally one-sided article that quotes only opponents of the Farm Bill, not a single supporter. :skull:

Second, you warn us that the Farm Bill will anger the world. As if you ever care whether the world is angered about U.S. policies.
The U.S. opposition to "Kyoto" angers the world. Does Xiahou care? No.
The U.S. intervention in Iraq angers the world. Does Xaihou care. No.
The U.S. Farm Bill angers the world. Does Xiahou care?
You bet!(because it angers Xiahou) :beam:

Third, you blame "Washington" for these woes, an attitude has always been rpevalent among Americans, just like Dutchmen have always blamed "The Hague" for war, famine, plague, floods and the decline of wooden shoe throwing on Easter Sundays. It's always someone else who's guilty. :yes:

In short, you qualify. Are you gonna run for a House seat soon? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Since when was stopping all special interests a democratic platform?:inquisitive: Obama's actually running on it because he HASN'T taken any of their money. Hillary, on the other hand, has taken loads from special interests as well as McCain over the years.

---

Last I heard, he took in more money from Pharmaceuticals than Hillary did back in March.
Also his backroom deals with Chicago special interests have been circulating the internet as well: You know, play cards together and let the other guy "win" big :wink:

Of course I can't be sure whether that is true or not without having been there.

America, enforcers of capitalism and free trade everywhere except America. :wink:

Like the article suggested, massive farmer lobbying isn't just an American problem. It disgusts me so much that I sometimes wonder wether Stalin had the right idea about farmers :no:

And this is why Congress' approval ratings are even lower than Bush's, 11% to 23%

I do find it hilarious that Congress is so incompetent that they messed up when they sent the bill to the White House. The bill Bush got wasn't the full bill they passed, so it looks like they have to pass it again. Bush will let it stew over the weekend, maybe longer, and if he's smart he should be letting the public outrage grow and grow. So now Congress will be getting blasted for a few weeks, hopefully that breaks the override.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052101313.html

Quote:

---

An unusual coalition of urban liberals and Republican fiscal conservatives tried to sustain Bush's veto. "Merely because the president is not the most popular person in the country today doesn't mean he's always wrong," said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who pushed for sweeping changes to the farm-support system.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

At the same time, party moderates have been urging their colleagues to oppose Bush at every opportunity or face electoral disaster in November.

"If I was a farm-belt guy, I would be all over my district now, saying, 'I stood with you, not the party of the president,' " said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who wrote to GOP leaders last week, urging them to defy Bush or at least allow rank-and-file members to save themselves. "Anytime you can separate yourself from someone with a 28 percent favorability rating, that's a good thing."

---

:no:

This is politics like usual.

Quote:

---

First, you introduce the Farm Bill through a totally one-sided article that quotes only opponents of the Farm Bill, not a single supporter.

---

But if it wasn't a totally one sided article then it would just be another example of the famous liberal bias in the media and xiahou could reject it out of hand:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But if it wasn't a totally one sided article then it would just be another example of the famous liberal bias in the media and xiahou could reject it out of hand:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...drawingja9.jpg

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Xiahou, you are quite a politician yourself. Go figure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But if it wasn't a totally one sided article then it would just be another example of the famous liberal bias in the media and xiahou could reject it out of hand

---

How exactly do comments like this help a discussion? But hey, by all means, if insults and derogatory statements are all you guys can muster today...

I'll just sit back and anticipate your usual insightful comments to reappear.

It's not overridden yet -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/...bush_farm_bill

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.
ADVERTISEMENT

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional. Republicans objected when Democrats proposed passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush.

---

CR

Quote:

---

How exactly do comments like this help a discussion?

---

a discussion ?????
Politicians pander to local interests in the run up to an election ....shock horror ...what is there to discuss ?
A poster that supports government waste , then hates government waste .
A poster that likes biased media and hates biased media .
A poster that cares what the world thinks and couldn't care less what the world thinks .
Now thats something to write about , we could re-title the thread to flip flop .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

How exactly do comments like this help a discussion? But hey, by all means, if insults and derogatory statements are all you guys can muster today...

I'll just sit back and anticipate your usual insightful comments to reappear.

---

You've missed a joke again, Don Corleone. :hat:

Xiahou got it, everyone else got it. We all know that this happens to you once or twice a year. Out of the purity of your soul, you take offence and come out with guns blazing where others merely laugh, smile or shrug.

Yet you are graciously forgiven, my son, for such mistakes are the seal of your honesty and goodness as well as the badge of ill-conceived jokes and lame posts.

I admit, I should have been funnier. :shame:

Now let's roll again.

https://img389.imageshack.us/img389/...djerry1uk9.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

America, enforcers of capitalism and free trade everywhere except America. :wink:

---

Oh yes. I can't understand why the US has these subsidies. It's so.... Communist. Oh yes, I said it...

But why would US farmers need these subsidies, btw? I know why our farmers need them, our land is crap so things are difficult to grow, but the US has splendid agricultural lands. Also, they have cheaper labour. I just can't make it fit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You've missed a joke again, Don Corleone. :hat:

---

If that was a joke, a thousand pardons, kind sir. :bow: As I said in my earlier post, I usually find your posts to be quite insightful, and found myself scratching my head.

As for guns blazing, that's not really the tone I was going for, more a minor chide. Trust me, when you see:

Quote:

---

----Last Edited by Banquo's Ghost
Reason: Let's try to keep the profanity and personal attacks to a minimum, shall we?

---

then you'll know I had a 'guns blazing' response. If you thought I was yelling, then I really missed my mark.

But why would US farmers need these subsidies, btw? I know why our farmers need them, our land is crap so things are difficult to grow, but the US has splendid agricultural lands. Also, they have cheaper labour. I just can't make it fit...


Well theres these really really poor guys who are willing to sell thier food and hard labour dirt cheap and so farmers are worried that once thier subsidies stop the poor farmers will be able to undercut them and take thier business.

I think farm subsidies need to be cut worldwide, noone can blame EU or USA for keeping the subsidies when everyone else is, thats why the EU and USA need to come together and agree to both cut thier subsidies, as well as less money spent on subsidies 3rd world countries would enjoy a boom as thier products become more viable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh yes. I can't understand why the US has these subsidies. It's so.... Communist. Oh yes, I said it...

But why would US farmers need these subsidies, btw? I know why our farmers need them, our land is crap so things are difficult to grow, but the US has splendid agricultural lands. Also, they have cheaper labour. I just can't make it fit...

---

Our secret shame :embarassed:

It's what US politicians do; spend other people's money on their constituents.

CR