View Poll Results: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 50.00%
  • No

    19 43.18%
  • Undecided

    3 6.82%
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 88

Thread: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

  1. #41
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Honestly Mag....I find it hard to get angry over the majority of that list. It deals with wheat research/broadband development for rural areas/West Nile Virus Research/potato research.....and this is a website that is obviously against any porkbarreling because the page is littered with snarky comments.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,869

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Not speaking for Gina, I think the point is that giving the Presidency that much authority for the purpose of addressing 0.5% of the annual budget will have many unforeseen consequences. It's using a shotgun to kill a fly and being surprised when injuries result.
    No worries TED, I think the unintended consequences could be very significant and just to address such a miniscule portion of the budget, is definitely over kill.

    There is a lot hand wringing over pork. I agree, Bridges to Nowhere are ridiculous, but there are many worthy projects that are supported by "pork barrel" spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.
    That's the process of political compromise and has been done in governance, since the beginning of time. That's the thing, government is not a business. It's not a for-profit venture.

    Of course the president would be held accountable, but not until the next election. In four years a president could do untold damage as using a line-item veto would not be an impeachable offense.
    Last edited by Gina; 12-28-11 at 05:46 PM.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We can’t get lost in discrimination. We can’t get lost in B.S. We can’t get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  3. #43
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Not all porkbarrel spending is a bridge to nowhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    No worries TED, I think the unintended consequences could be very significant and just to address such a miniscule portion of the budget, is definitely over kill.

    There is a lot hand wringing over pork. I agree, Bridges to Nowhere are ridiculous, but there are many worthy projects that are supported by "pork barrel" spending.



    That's the process of political compromise and has been done in governance, since the beginning of time. That's the thing, government is not a business. It's not a for-profit venture.

    Of course the president would be held accountable, but not until the next election. In four years a president could do untold damage as using a line-item veto would not be an impeachable offense.
    I totally agree that not all pork is unneeded or unnecessary. But, much is. However, as I read through this thread, I am coming to the conclusion that a better alternative than a line-item veto would be restricting bills to a single subject matter. If an item is truly worthy, then it should still be able to stand on its own merits.

    There would still be some tit-for-tat deal making going on, but it would be lessened, and the results would be more transparent. Easier for voters to assess what they legislators really did, and where they really stand, rather than wonder where and when they compromised.

  4. #44
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.
    The system has long been configured in such a way that Congress is able to blame the President and the President is able to blame Congress and they're both able to blame the court system. If you give the President the line-item veto, this won't change the essential dynamic, and you will remove the horse-trading function that gives less powerful Congresspeople the ability to look after the interests of their electorates.

    What you'll end up with are power-grabbing bills with the safeguards removed, thus increasing the amount of judicial review (incorrectly called legislating from the bench) necessary to reign in the government, and the party that holds the White House will get the vast majority of the appropriations perks. The Presidency benefits because it becomes even more powerful, and Congress benefits because it gets to pass the buck to the Presidency.
    Last edited by TacticalEvilDan; 12-28-11 at 06:09 PM.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #45
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
    No.Because the president will just simply veto what ever he wants and keep what he wants.For example lets take a so called compromise on illegal immigration( if the American people are stupid enough to fall for another so called compromise) that involves amnesty for all the illegals,tax payer aid to help the illegals no longer be illegals , crack downs on the scum who hire illegals as well a crack down on the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary states and cities that aid illegals and a ban on tuition for illegals children. A president that supports amnesty will simply veto all the enforcement measures against illegal immigration such as the crack downs on scum who hire illegals and the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary state and city policies.A politician that is actually against illegal immigration will simply veto any amnesty provisions as well as anything else that encourages illegal immigration. A line item veto is a double edged sword. It hurts you if the president doesn't support what you support and it helps you if the president supports what you support.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 12-28-11 at 07:14 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #46
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.
    Um, that's pretty much the same thing.

    payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
    Without the pipeline thing, the tax cut bill might never have passed. That's the choice sometimes.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #47
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.
    But that's how everything works. It's how business works. It's how life works. You have to compromise. You have to give something in order to get something. Nothing wrong with that.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #48
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,997

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    I said yes. This would allow the President to veto only portions of a bill (spending). It would be a good check/balance to the riders that Congress is so use to attaching to anything they can. Besides, once vetoed, if Congress can get the votes, the veto could be overturned.

    Congress does not seem to have the will to change. They seem not to have the will to stop pork barrell spending.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  9. #49
    200M yrs of experience
    Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeastern USA
    Last Seen
    05-07-12 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,166

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    While I'd rather see rules that say anything in a bill must be related to the name of the the bill, I know Congress is not about to cut off its chief method of sneaking pork to its rich buddies so I vote yes on a line-item veto.

  10. #50
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.

    payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
    A great idea
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •