In another thread, we have a debate that has turned into one of who is playing politics with SCHIP.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=15584

Question for Debate:

1. Is Bush, Congress or both playing politics with SCHIP.

2. Who is more culpable?

Since GW has NEVER vetoed spending bills before, and generally has supported huge expenditures, I would say this is pure politics, there is no basis for this fight for him, 35billion is a drop in the bucket as far as spending by this dude.

110% political rhetoric on his side.

1. Is Bush, Congress or both playing politics with SCHIP.

As I wrote in the other thread, I think both Bush and congress are playing politics. That is how I voted.

I also think Bush will win the showdown over the budget. He will, however, further lose the minds and hearts of the American people. People no longer seem to like or trust Bush.

2. Who is more culpable?

Bush is more culpable for the reasons CR mentioned. Why after six years of blowing the budget through the roof under Republican Congresses, has he just now found his veto pen? Was it hiding under his desk with those WMD he once made a joke about?

This is a typical pattern when a party loses the legislature. Same thing happened in Colorado when the Demos got the state legislature in 2004 and the Repub governor, Owens, had a couple more years to his last term. Vetos to the left of him, vetos to the right, the veto ink commodities market soared. Then we put a Demo governor in, 2006, who turned out to be pretty level-headed, even though the Repubs were scared he'd be an ideologue.

Politicians play politics, like chess players play chess. I don't find these types of situations surprising, nor do I expect anything more from President Bush. He, like Owens did, is following the party line.

An interesting thing is that we were all sure that Owens would make a White House run this time around. I guess the coarse looked too rocky, but he might show in 2012. Meanwhile, President Bush has absolutely nothing to lose by vetoing bills put up by the Demo legislature unless it's exactly what he wants. Seems there's no stimulus to boost the running candidates. I'm suspecting the Repubs will throw this one, let the Demos deal with Iraq and probably Iran, then come back in 2012 or 2018 with pointed accusatory fingers. Well, there'll be the midterms too. Every two years, eh?

If it seems like a game and we're pawns in it, that's because it is a game and we are pawns.

Actually he has vetoed a spending bill before, so saying NEVER is false. http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...bushs-iraq.html

Technically, you are correct, scubatim.

The Bush veto on the war funding bill, however, wasn't about fiscal restraint, but conditions Congress attached to the bill.



See scubatim's link.

Keep in mind that this veto occurred after the Democratsa took control of Congress.

If memory serves me, his only veto prior to Democratic control involved stem-cell research. Technically, that was also a funding measure, but the real motivation was kissing religious-right booty - usually a bad thing.

You are right, the appropriations bill was vetoed in regards to conditions attached, to include the additional $20+bln for earmarks such as peanut storage as well as the timetable. Maybe the point on the additional $20 bln is only an observation, but that is one of the reasons I did not support that particular bill.

You know damned well scubatim that Bush wasn't really concerned with "peanut storage," but the bill's provisions for withdrawl of troops.

Well, well, BoF, did I strike a nerve? Didn't I say that it was only an observation and that is one of the reasons I didn't support it? Besides, show me the last time any politician was fiscally responsible. It has gotten to the point that there is little difference between the two major parties, especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

You flatter yourself by assuming you hit a nerve.

I think though, we are in basic agreement. I have no doubt, Bush would have signed the bill, "peanuts" and all, absent the troop withdrawl provision.

You do have to give him one thing regarding Iraq, he does have his convictions....agree with them or not, he isn't backing down.

That's one way to look at it, but that's probably best debated on another thread.

Its all politics and fiscal policy. The fact that the man let Repubs spend like drunken sailors is beside the point. This is a permanent wrong headed entitlement that should not pass.



The democrats. They did this for political gain and are loving the issue – with good reason.

At this point we should just pass it and remember when the deficit balloons where this piece of crap legislation came from.