House passes troop spending bill, requires Iraq pullout

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Link
WASHINGTON, April 25 — The House on Wednesday narrowly approved a $124 billion war spending bill that would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, setting the stage for the first veto fight between President Bush and majority Democrats.
...
The Senate is expected on Thursday to approve identical legislation, which provides more than $95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money conditioned on the administration’s willingness to accept a timetable for withdrawal and new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government.

What's wrong with setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government?

[Epidemic]

simple they are not required, won't be approved. they are simply weapons to be aimed at the administration.

They can pull funding anytime they want (that is their constitutional right) setting time tables is not part of their powers.

This is non binding, as such should not be in there it is nothing more than a political game. Non binding resolution=do nothing resolution= not required.

PS it costs a ton of pork to get people to buy into this non binding resolution, remove it and get the fricking troops their damn money.


If they wish to start cutting funding in october November that is absolutely in their power. this is a game the democrats are playing to keep on both sides of the fence. We are not going to do anything except give lip service to our anti-war constituents and make them feel loved whild still funding the war.

If you are against the war then pull the fucking funding. Otherwise give the funding. This in between crap is strictly so the democrats do not need to stand for anything.

[tony_j15]

Quote:

If you are against the war then pull the fucking funding. Otherwise give the funding. This in between crap is strictly so the democrats do not need to stand for anything.

word.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

This is non binding, as such should not be in there it is nothing more than a political game. Non binding resolution=do nothing resolution= not required.

First, my understanding is that it is binding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

They can pull funding anytime they want (that is their constitutional right) setting time tables is not part of their powers.

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

First, my understanding is that it is binding.Second, Congress' power is more than just funding. Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." According to Professor David Barron from the Harvard Law School, "Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate ongoing military operations, and even to bring them to an end," Barron stated, explaining that while the power of the purse is the strongest authority to control executive military actions, it is not the only power. Barron's statement reviews relevant rulings of the Supreme Court, and finds in them, and in the Constitution, no real limits on Congress's powers to manage a war. In fact, his review of the sources related to this question shows that to find otherwise would be contrary to the clear intention of the nation's Founders to control the chief executive.

That view is supported by Professor Walter Dellinger of the Duke University School of Law who testified, "I would be ready to conclude that a president can act on his own authority and pursuant to his own judgment in matters of national security. Once Congress has acted, however, the issue is fundamentally different. The question then becomes whether the Act of Congress is itself unconstitutional."

Third, your solution of cutting off funding is not responsible because that cuts off supplies of troops immediately. The Democrats want to be responsible and not deny troops of needed resources and materials.
Republicans now make the argument that this bill is loaded with pork but that argument is fallacious. The special projects in this bill that the right-wing media has been crying about account for about $300 million in the whole bill. However, just last year, these same Republicans endorsed the emergency supplemental bill that included $15 billion in domestic spending, including “$4 billion for farmers, $1.1 billion for Gulf Coast fisheries, and $1 billion in grants to states.” They didn't have a problem with pork a year ago but they have a problem now.

In addition, what the president calls "pork" is a provisions that increase Veteran’s benefits and Katrina aid. Among these items is $3.4 billion for upgrading medical care for returning Iraq war veterans.

The bill also includes $1 billion for enhancing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and $1.4 billion that was not requested but is urgently need to fill a shortfall in funds needed to pay the Basic Allowance for Housing to military families through the end of the current fiscal year. In addition, the bill addressed a number of pressing domestic needs not included in the president’s proposal. These include: $1.25 billion for improving port security in line with the recommendations of numerous experts, including the Rudman-Hart Commission; $1.25 billion for better bomb-detection equipment in our airports; and $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect us from a global pandemic.

1. 3 Million for funding Sugar Cane
2. 3.5 Million,guided tours of Capitol Hill
3. 12 Million,Forest Service
4. 20 Million, Insect reimbursement damage in Nevada
5. 24 Million,funding sugar beets
6. 75 million, Salaries and expenses for the Farm Service
7. 165.9 million, fisheries disaster relief
8. 40 million, tree assistance program( must be for Gore to offset his carbon footprint)
9. 100 million,funding of 2008 National Party Conventions

[Epidemic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

First, my understanding is that it is binding.Second, Congress' power is more than just funding. Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." According to Professor David Barron from the Harvard Law School, "Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate ongoing military operations, and even to bring them to an end," Barron stated, explaining that while the power of the purse is the strongest authority to control executive military actions, it is not the only power. Barron's statement reviews relevant rulings of the Supreme Court, and finds in them, and in the Constitution, no real limits on Congress's powers to manage a war. In fact, his review of the sources related to this question shows that to find otherwise would be contrary to the clear intention of the nation's Founders to control the chief executive.

That view is supported by Professor Walter Dellinger of the Duke University School of Law who testified, "I would be ready to conclude that a president can act on his own authority and pursuant to his own judgment in matters of national security. Once Congress has acted, however, the issue is fundamentally different. The question then becomes whether the Act of Congress is itself unconstitutional."

Third, your solution of cutting off funding is not responsible because that cuts off supplies of troops immediately. The Democrats want to be responsible and not deny troops of needed resources and materials.
Republicans now make the argument that this bill is loaded with pork but that argument is fallacious. The special projects in this bill that the right-wing media has been crying about account for about $300 million in the whole bill. However, just last year, these same Republicans endorsed the emergency supplemental bill that included $15 billion in domestic spending, including “$4 billion for farmers, $1.1 billion for Gulf Coast fisheries, and $1 billion in grants to states.” They didn't have a problem with pork a year ago but they have a problem now.

In addition, what the president calls "pork" is a provisions that increase Veteran’s benefits and Katrina aid. Among these items is $3.4 billion for upgrading medical care for returning Iraq war veterans.

The bill also includes $1 billion for enhancing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and $1.4 billion that was not requested but is urgently need to fill a shortfall in funds needed to pay the Basic Allowance for Housing to military families through the end of the current fiscal year. In addition, the bill addressed a number of pressing domestic needs not included in the president’s proposal. These include: $1.25 billion for improving port security in line with the recommendations of numerous experts, including the Rudman-Hart Commission; $1.25 billion for better bomb-detection equipment in our airports; and $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect us from a global pandemic.

all of those wonderful pork programs may be well and good but let them stand on their own merrits. otherwise they are pork designed to win votes for something that is unpopular with those who are voting...


Ok so they want to wait until october/november to pull out. But have no metrics for success. Lets get this right they have no plan except for a pull out. then let's pull out. If success is not the measure then leave ASAP

[Theophylact]

51-46. Without the vote of John McCain, who was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire, but with Joe Lieberman (R-CT) opposed.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad1

1. 3 Million for funding Sugar Cane
2. 3.5 Million,guided tours of Capitol Hill
3. 12 Million,Forest Service
4. 20 Million, Insect reimbursement damage in Nevada
5. 24 Million,funding sugar beets
6. 75 million, Salaries and expenses for the Farm Service
7. 165.9 million, fisheries disaster relief
8. 40 million, tree assistance program( must be for Gore to offset his carbon footprint)
9. 100 million,funding of 2008 National Party Conventions

That's exactly what I said above, the so-called 'pork' accounts for a couple hundred Million (with an 'm') dollars - far less than the Republican pork in the same bill last year that neither the president nor the Republicans had difficulty accepting. So, the argument is BS.

[Epidemic]

None the less fund the war or do not fund the war. have some conviction democrats.


well actually they do have conviction, it is completely the conviction of inreased power by dishonest means. I will have to look at the non binding nature thing though. Last time I heard about this it was non binding so now I gots to see what it means now.

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

That's exactly what I said above, the so-called 'pork' accounts for a couple hundred Million (with an 'm') dollars - far less than the Republican pork in the same bill last year that neither the president nor the Republicans had difficulty accepting. So, the argument is BS.

That totals to 443.4 million, almost 1/2 billion dollars of pork.

What was the earmarks in the Republican bill you are referring to?

I left out some,
$283 million for Milk Loss Contract Program
$20 million to combat Mormon Crickets

The new total is $746.4 million.