Doesn't he know that without funding he can't have his war anymore?
2007-03-23 09:14:53 · 8 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actually, Moltar, suggesting Congress is forced to spend money on everything the President wants violates the separation of powers.
2007-03-23 09:21:16 · update #1
that doesn't make any sense to me.
2007-03-23 09:17:12 · answer #1 · answered by aphotic nostrum 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pork and earmarks are par for the course in any kind of spending bill. The fact is, as has been seen with much legislation, Presidents and Congressmen would rather veto a bill than not get what they want. How many times has Congress gone into emergency sessions when they could not agree on a budget. What they do is they spend the money anyway and get it approved later.
2007-03-23 09:21:28 · answer #2 · answered by James 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How can you not know the answer? There is 45 million dollars earmarked for pet projects, totally unrelated to the war, to buy votes from reluctant Democrats.
What does a million dollar spinach subsidy have to do with funding the military? Absolutely nothing. The house Dems are being just plain riduculous.
2007-03-23 09:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He vetoed the Bill because there were provisions in there that actually help America
can't have that
Pretty sad when the only way we can get a dime out of this administration for America is to hide it in a MORE WAR MONEY bill
2007-03-23 09:21:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Prolly has somethign to do with all the pork and earmarks you liberals put into it.. and of course putitng a hard date for pullouts in it.. amazing isnt it when politicians try to be generals, couse it could be the earmarks for spinich farms or peanuts tooHell you prolly haven;t even read the bill yourself
2007-03-23 09:18:58 · answer #5 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That bill is a political hot potato. They will throw it back and forth until it blows up in someone's face.
2007-03-23 09:22:41 · answer #6 · answered by Crabboy4 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it came with an obligation to withdraw in a time frame he's not ready to commit to.
2007-03-23 09:19:36 · answer #7 · answered by AngelaTC 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Too many pork addenda, for starters.
It also tells him when he has to end it, which effectively negates the constitutional separation of powers. We have one Commander-in-Chief, not 536.
2007-03-23 09:18:14 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋