Could Congress stop the war immediately by cutting off the funding?

Question

xavasia - why the sarcasm? It DID work great with the Vietnam war!

Elway - Democrats ARE the majority. And, in any event, it would not require any vote at all - it would just require not passing the supplemental spending bill.

right you are ken - Bush's veto power has nothing to do with it. Congress has to PASS bills to keep the war going. The Democrats could stop those bills if they wanted to.

xavasia, it prevented more soldiers and more Vietnamese from dying in an immoral war.

Elway - thanks for the honesty. Even though Americans voted Democratic to end the war, the Democrats "don't think it would be a wise move" to do so.

Voters will draw their own conclusions re: that wisdom.

Answer 1

It would make George Bush be responsible and have to work with Congress, so I say yes to this situation. Cut his purse strings and EGO.

Answer 2

Yes, technically they could do this. But it would require a majority vote they probably couldn't get right now. Even if it passed the Congress Bush would veto it and it would go back to them for an even higher majority to get past Bush's veto. It isn't happening. We haven't reached the level of outrage that Vietnam caused to get the majority we need to cut the funding.

EDIT: The supplemental spending bill would not entail cutting off enough funds to end the war. The Democrats are a majority by ONE vote. The problem remains that Democrats do not agree on how much funding to cut, whether to cut funding completely off, or simply to refuse to fund further troop surges. So getting a full party vote to completely cut funding to the war is a pretty tall order. Most Democrats, though the Republicans do not like to admit it, know that a full pullout of our troops is not a wise move, and that we will have to have a presence in Iraq in some form for a long time to come.

Answer 3

Yes it could, but to do so would need more Republican Votes and Joe Liebermann because the Senate can't close the debate without 60 Votes and needs 66 to override a Veto. So it is a good thing that the Long hair Tiedyed Birkenstocks wearing idiots in our nation don't have the votes to stop the war like they did in Vietnam. The Surge is also working which also works against the desire of the left to destroy our war making capability.

Answer 4

Of course, congress controls the money. They of course would have to answer to the 26 million Americans and their families that have bravely served our country in harms way. I assume from your attitude that you are not one of those.

And if they were run out of congress because of it they would no longer be treated like kings, lavished with riches for life and this would not be good for them personally.

Do not be so naive, it is about money, the congresses money and they do not give a hill of beans about what you or I or any other person things, except when they want to be re-elected.

Have you noticed since the election the dems in congress for the most part have moved to a straddle position regarding the war. Have you noticed how folks like you are raising a stink because you were promised they would stop the war, and they lied to you. How long before you wake and see they lie.

Answer 5

The shape can provide classes and to comprehend it totally an intensive be attentive to-how of purpose is likewise needed. Ron Paul is the only candidate that rather has a persevering with balloting checklist because of the fact he seems to The shape each and every time he votes. there is distinctive understanding there. Our Founding Fathers instant us to be non-interventionist. Be a chum to all international locations, commerce with all international locations yet do no longer become in contact of their politics. sure, he replace into warning people 30 years in the past approximately issues that are occurring now. He has an intensive be attentive to-how of the economic device, foreign places coverage and well-being care. he's the main suitable selection for usa.

Answer 6

you tried this question yesterday..or has the pipe affected your memory....

GW does not need funding...He was given the war authorization by congress..he can borrow from other programs and make congress pay

They must vote a law to take away his authorization...which he CAN veto

OR

They can vote a law to stop funding....WHICH HE CAN VETO

OR

Just do nothing and make it harder to obtain the money having to cut other programs to get it...

Nice try again...but the LAW is the same as yesterday.......even CoraG..a liberal Lawyer agreed with me........that was scary....

Answer 7

Could they, yes. Will they, not yet. I'm speaking about congress as a whole and not as parties. It's highly unlikely congress will override a Presidential veto. President Bush is going to drag down the republican party till he leaves.

Answer 8

We saw how well that worked with the Vietnam War.

For whom did it work out well for? Did it bring the 50,000+ soldiers back to life, home to their families? Did the US accomplish their stated objectives? It is fine not to agree with the premise and politics of a war, but try to remember, soldiers, not politicians are fighting the war.

Did you not read my rebuttal? Whether it was immoral or not, once you start something, it is your MORAL obligation to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

If you care to debate this further, please feel free to email me.

Answer 9

It caused 3 million deaths in Viet Nam! You call that working good?

Answer 10

congress can't cut off the funding they need 60 votes to do that and they don't have them.