Muscatine

Lucy...now, re-read MY post. I posted that Congress controls SPENDING!

I don't care who signs a bill into law...because it means squat. A president does not preside over it....as in your example with Clinton. He did not preside over that at all. Once a bill is signed into law by a president, it then must be approved and then **funded** by the Cong. Budget Office, who "preside over it"!

Who runs the CBO? Those in charge at the time, my friend. Fundamentally...there is NO question who is responsible. But, you have fallen into the mainstream media trap and your father's own misguided trap on elements such as these.

Just open up to the reality, will ya?

Hey BB

We got our talking points across and I agree with you in principle. But therein lies the rub. Who we blame once the damage has been done. It just goes back to what I have advocated all this time. They are all at fault and should suffer a total rebuffing and removal via our:::oh so tired votes. The CBO is still the support system. It's not a retroactive system, and still must have total agreement ending in the hands of the president. A true conservative and wise leader wouldn't have let that budget and all the sneaky little riders, underhanded earmarks, and perks for certain reps. as Clinton did in late 99, go back to the budget office in the first place. That's what dad was getting at, and in that I too agree. Understanding you have served in the political arena you're wiser there than me:::again you are spot on within procedural etiquette. My father simply understood what was done in whole, to wipe out our prosperity, and his personally. The media does influence the flock, yes, most of it just gets wasted as they do not seem to understand how most know their hearts long before an uttered word. Thanks for the lesson. That reality check does get cashed once in a while.

Lucy

The sky is green and the grass is blue.

...........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................

..................................................................................................

.......Waiting now for the bird to agree with me.....on principle.

Mallodery wrote: Your right of course.   I should have said let the pollutor's customers pay to clean it up.
Add the cost to their bourbon etc. and not my health care.   They can then enjoy their drinks but at a little higher price and I can enjoy my clean air.

Just realize that we all are GPC's customers indirectly.  And we all end up paying more for what we buy. We are paying for their products at some point in the product stream whether we realize it or not.  By the way they don't just make alcohol.  Don't they do things with corn oil, syrup and starch?  Where are those used?  In what products that are bought by "the poor"?

And I forgot that to mention the other way companies pay for clean up and taxes (or any costs)...they try to improve productivity.  That means they try to produce more for less worker cost.

I'm not arguing against cleaning up pollution, just trying to point out that their are many unintended consequences of all "do gooder" laws and policies.  Those consequences usually don't bite the citizen until it is too late to change things.