Bush would veto installment plan funding for Iraq? WHY?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-10-2007, 07:16 PM

In the news today:

Democrats said they would approve legislation funding the war on an installment plan and Bush said he would veto it.

What could Bush's rationale for such a veto be? I understand why he would veto a funding bill with withdrawal provisions- it's a challenge to his commander in chief power to control the troops, which he would say is unconstitutional- but why would he veto an installment plan?!

It's perfectly within Congress' choice to give him however much or little money they want. He insists he needs money for the war, and they agree to give him a certain amount. Why would he veto that? I don't get it...it'd be like asking for charity, and then when you get it, you throw it back in the donor's face because it's not as much as you wanted.

Even politically, how would he justify it? He can't say congress was insisting on withdrawal, so what would his excuse be for turning down the money he says he needs?

Donkey® · 05-10-2007, 07:18 PM

He's an idiot. I think that's the reason. He's determined to try and scrape some morsel of dignity and accomplishment from this fucking debacle.

Kytro · 05-10-2007, 08:36 PM

Bush wants to try to make congress fund the war on his terms, how he sees fit, by the look of it.

Diesel66 · 05-10-2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Bush wants to try to make congress fund the war on his terms, how he sees fit, by the look of it.

.

If congress had any balls, they wouldnt give him a dime.

But they dont.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-10-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

.

If congress had any balls, they wouldnt give him a dime.

But they dont.

So is that what this is? Bush is refusing conditionless installment payments because he's so confident he'll make congress his bitch and force them to give him a conditionless lump sum?

I'm curious to see what happens...either Congress is more spineless than I think or Bush is about to get owned.

Nonphixion · 05-10-2007, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Bush wants to try to make congress fund the war on his terms, how he sees fit, by the look of it.

I doubt it's solely a personal squabble, I doubt it is an effort to assert his right to dignity.

George W. Bush is a lot smarter than he pretends to be, IMHO.

Diesel66 · 05-10-2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So is that what this is? Bush is refusing conditionless installment payments because he's so confident he'll make congress his bitch and force them to give him a conditionless lump sum?

Or he wants to ensure he doesnt have to go through this bullshit in 3 months.

Kytro · 05-10-2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

I doubt it's solely a personal squabble, I doubt it is an effort to assert his right to dignity.

George W. Bush is a lot smarter than he pretends to be, IMHO.

I didn't say it was personal. I expect it is about maintaining the line he is the "decider" and the "commander guy" and so should be able to do whatever he likes in regards to the war, including getting the money he wants.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-10-2007, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

George W. Bush is a lot smarter than he pretends to be, IMHO.

So what is he thinking? Why veto installment payments?

1) Does he think he won't suffer any political harm from refusing installment payments? After all, most of America wants to leave Iraq. He had some clout on the timeline issue, because although most Americans want out, they didn't necessarily want an abrupt end per the Congress' instructions. But flat out refusing installment payments? That seems like a reasonable solution. It seems to me he'll risk looking stubborn and uncooperative.

2) Is he so confident in his ability to get a conditionless lump sum on his terms? Why would he be? Congress doesn't seem eager to back down.

3) If he doesn't think he'll get a conditionless lump sum, what possible better compromise is there than installment payments that he's holding out for?

I don't get it.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-10-2007, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Or he wants to ensure he doesnt have to go through this bullshit in 3 months.

In other words, he wants a blank check with no questions asked. I think the Democrats could easily spin it this way in the court of public opinion and make his approval rating go down even lower (it can go even lower, right?).

Maybe if the Democrats successfully make him look like a jackass on this one the Republicans will even farther be dragged down by their party come '08.

Diesel66 · 05-10-2007, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

In other words, he wants a blank check with no questions asked.

Since 2003, they have been approving the funding 1 year at a time just like Congress approves every other spending bill.

Why should he have to deal with a funding debate every month or quarter ?

Its pretty hard to fight a war when you have no idea if you are going to get approval for next month.

Donkey® · 05-10-2007, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Since 2003, they have been approving the funding 1 year at a time just like Congress approves every other spending bill.

Why should he have to deal with a funding debate every month or quarter ?

Its pretty hard to fight a war when you have no idea if you are going to get approval for next month.

I guess the fact that he's spent BILLIONS on this war and it still seems hard for him means nothing?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-10-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Why should he have to deal with a funding debate every month or quarter ?

Because that's the way our government is set up, and the people don't trust him to run things without more congressional oversight than there has been in the past.

Diesel66 · 05-10-2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I guess the fact that he's spent BILLIONS on this war and it still seems hard for him means nothing?

Because that's the way our government is set up, and the people don't trust him to run things without more congressional oversight than there has been in the past.

no our country is set up on annual budgets. President summits budget, Congress approves/denies/changes budget and sends it back. Next year they do it all over again.

Kytro · 05-10-2007, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

no our country is set up on annual budgets. President summits budget, Congress approves/denies/changes budget and sends it back. Next year they do it all over again.

Congress can provide budgets as they see fit. Basically by creating an installment plan they are saying Bush isn't responsible enough to be given control of all the money at once.

In other words they do not want to give him what he asks for then have him charge off and do something they disagree with. With installments they can effectively fund the war so long as he does not step out of line too much.

Bush does not want to be limited by Congress.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-11-2007, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

no our country is set up on annual budgets. President summits budget, Congress approves/denies/changes budget and sends it back. Next year they do it all over again.

Wait, are you saying that somewhere in the constitution it says that Congress can only appropriate in minimum year long chunks? I'm no expert, but the last time I checked, it was the opposite-- there were restrictions on for how long Congress could fund the Army. The Navy is less restrictive because the founders weren't as worried about the Navy getting uppity.

Anyway, there's obviously a reason why one branch controls the money and the other controls the troops. It's no accident. They're supposed to argue and fight just like they're doing now.

Donkey® · 05-11-2007, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

YOU "Its pretty hard to fight a war when you have no idea if you are going to get approval for next month."

Me: He's had free reign of BILLIONS thus far and has failed miserably. Maybe, just maybe, certain timetables would encourage him to actually use the money WISELY and formulate a real PLAN?

ballz2wallz · 05-11-2007, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He's an idiot. I think that's the reason. .

This explains it all!!

motivez · 05-11-2007, 01:04 PM

He doesn't want accountability, pretty simple really.

He's failed miserably so far to adequately come up with a new plan despite bipartisan calls for it, and instead decided to repeat a strategy that has failed in the past and continues to fail now..

Why would he want to have to make his case to Congress every so often instead of just being able to continue his policy of "I'll do what I want without listening to anyone"?

Diesel66 · 05-11-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wait, are you saying that somewhere in the constitution it says that Congress can only appropriate in minimum year long chunks?

so the last 200 plus years of history have no say in the matter ?

Anyway, there's obviously a reason why one branch controls the money and the other controls the troops. It's no accident. They're supposed to argue and fight just like they're doing now.

Either fund the war or stop the war. Dont do this bullshit in the middle.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

YOU "Its pretty hard to fight a war when you have no idea if you are going to get approval for next month."

Me: He's had free reign of BILLIONS thus far and has failed miserably. Maybe, just maybe, certain timetables would encourage him to actually use the money WISELY and formulate a real PLAN?

How has he failed miserably ?