This story is archived
Congress Overrides Bush Veto First Time »
Posted by: MyWayOnNow 2 years, 1 month agoPresident Bush suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest that it was too expensive. It was the first in a decade that Congress has passed a bill over a presidential veto.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Submitted By:
MyWayOnNow
I am Editor In Chief of MyWayOnNow Social News connecting you with friends and the news.
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 249
-
MyWayOnNow
Nov. 8, 2007, 12:26 p.m."The vote was 79-14 to pass the bill. Enactment was a foregone conclusion, but it still marked a milestone for a president who spent his first six years with a much friendlier Congress controlled by his Republican Party. Now he confronts a more hostile, Democratic- controlled legislature, and Thursday's vote showed that even many Republicans will defy him on spending matters dear to their political careers."
-
joeblowe
Nov. 8, 2007, 12:54 p.m.Let's see - can't spend a few billion to try to manage our water resources (which are MORE critical than oil, actually) but it's OK to spend hundreds of billions to buy Iraq? Man, that's just stupid. At least our reps in Congress had sense enough to make this happen. (Assuming it isn't all going to pork projects, graft, and corruption of course)
-
baddad59Comment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
-
crespi
Nov. 8, 2007, 1:08 p.m.Bush doesn't give a DAMN about America or the American people. Never has.
Go Congress.
Next-
We purge our government of religious fanatics and corporate connivers.
THEN maybe this could be AMERICA again.
-
Charlson
Nov. 8, 2007, 1:13 p.m.It seems Congress is able to over ride Bush's veto when the legislation effects their constituents. Now why don't they listen to them about Iraq? Aren't they effected by this war? Billions being spent on a war the majority of us don't want. And billions being diverted from helping America's children and the general welfare of this nation.
-
Teech
Nov. 8, 2007, 1:14 p.m.Thank God those fools in Congress don't override his veto of health care measures. That would really pi$$ off the health care brokers who suck up over 80% of our premium dollars to provide a decent profit for stockholders (by not paying our health care providers) and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to their campaigns. Yeah, I know, a few hundred million sounds like a lot of cash, but not when compared to the Healthnet CEO's compensation of 1.1 billion! I supposed he's worth it. Man would be a fool to turn it down!
Bush was right to veto that water resources bill! What fool would spend money in California, a state he did NOT carry in either election! Besides, if those old levees in the California Delta give out, think of the good fishing he and his buddy Arnold can do in Downtown Sacramento. Imagine! catching 20 pound stripers from the Capitol steps! King Salmon from the Underwater Capitol Gardens! Sturgeon from the State House. Gotta love our Pres. !
-
Harbeas
Nov. 8, 2007, 3:23 p.m.This would be great if it started a trend. But I am not counting on it!
-
Aidenag
Nov. 8, 2007, 3:39 p.m.Democrat led Congress FTW!
I woulda loved to have seen the look on his face when he found out he doesnt have the final say on anything and everything he wants.
-
StarLord
Nov. 8, 2007, 3:54 p.m.Well, well, welll....
I may actually begin having some faith in your Congress again - God knows it took a battering when they caved on the Iraq spending bills.
-
4cprocess
Nov. 8, 2007, 4:11 p.m.No one here seems to care where the money is going or even questioning it.
Everyone's to busy reveling in the defeat of the veto.
I myself would like to know what the money is earmarked for.
I don't care for all the spending on the war either but two wrongs don't make a right.
This government spends (wastes) too much damn money to start with, period.
-
-
nikkibabe
Nov. 8, 2007, 5:19 p.m.Don't give this idiot President another dime for his adventure in Iraq. Let him scream about this troops who will have to return anyway once the money is cut.
-
zman
Nov. 8, 2007, 6:12 p.m.This President Calling any spending too expensive in light of his massive wasted spending in Iraq is the joke of the century. Bush has squandered trillions, our good name in the world and the lives of way too many brave soldiers. The Bush legacy is one of pure failure.
-
-
markmawn2
Nov. 8, 2007, 6:45 p.m.Prepare for the whining to follow that "some folks are trying to play politics with issues that are near and dear to me".
7 years too late on this.
-
willottica
Nov. 8, 2007, 6:52 p.m.Beach restoration???
Yeah, what a useful, fiscally responsible project, when you have bridges badly in need of repair. Not so likely a beach will collapse and kill people... but the US is all about luxury over necessity, so I guess it's to be expected.
It hardly seems like something for the federal government to worry about. At first, I read the article and thought, "Yay for vetoing Bush's veto," but there is so much pork and earmarks here that it probably should have been vetoed.
Earmarks and Pork. Two practices that NEED to be stopped, I'd go so far as to say they should be legislated against, but they'd put so much pork into the bill banning pork that it'd get vetoed too! (Now if it passed, would the pork be the final pork to pass, or would it retroactively trim itself?)
-
willottica
Nov. 8, 2007, 6:55 p.m.Unfortunately, the corrupt administration has no way to override majority legislation of a corrupt congress.
I think it IS time for a line-item veto; I doubt many of those congressmen would have voted to override a veto on restoring a beach in New Jersey.
-
Teagen
Nov. 8, 2007, 7 p.m.Great so instead of building bridges that go no where, we're going to build beaches and water fronts. This is nothing less than pork barrel spending.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
willottica
Nov. 8, 2007, 8:16 p.m.MichaelRhodente, who do you expect to hear about it from? There's democratic AND republican pork in this bill, and the less people know about pork, the more they can get away with!
It is NOT a partisan issue, it's about every single one of them working the system because they can. The only way around it is really to get independants in the House, and even then they'll probably STILL figure out a way to trade 'earmarks/bribes' for votes.
-
willottica
Nov. 8, 2007, 8:17 p.m.The fact of the matter is, an honest person is not willing to spend 7 figures on a campaign to get a job that pulls in 6 figures... so the ones that run are there for the 'extras' that they KNOW will be forthcoming.
-
-
-
scott4261
Nov. 8, 2007, 9:07 p.m.Holy sh*t! I can't believe it.
I'm trying hard not to get too optimistic.
Will Congress finally find its spine?
Imagine what could be done if that happened!
The first 219 comments are shown. Show all 249 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
