[Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

[Donovan Arnold]

The US Constitution gives the House control over the budget and ability to control war. The President cannot legally have troops overseas for more than 90 days without  declaration of war or approval of Congress. 
   
  Congress doesn't need an appropriations bill passed to change that. It can simply vote with a simple majority vote to either cut funding to the military or order the troops back. The Democratic controlled Congress has not done that. 
   
  75% of the population wants to end the war, NOW. Yet Congress is not acting on that public demand. There must be a reason why.
   
  US troops will still be in Iraq in 2008 and 2009. They are simple giving you lip service and stalling. Our troop numbers might be reduced in the near future, but we are staying in Iraq, our national security depends on it. 
   
  Best,
   
  Donovan

Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                Arnold, Arnold, Arnold –
   
  If you have been following the news this past month or so, you would have realized (like all of the rest of us have) that Congress IS refusing to finance the war any further than September (or is it November?).
   
  Congress’ refusal to further finance Bush’s war is what gave birth to Bush’s claim that Congress refuses to provide a sizeable pay hike for the military, which is tied into the budget for Bush’s war.  It is all tied into the budget for fiscal year ’08.  If Congress refuses to pass the FY08 budget, as written, (which, for all intents and purposes, it intends to do), finances for Bush’s war run extremely shallow and the military does not get its much needed pay raise.
    Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 

      
---------------------------------
  
  From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:14 AM
To: Andreas Schou
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

   
    Andreas,

     

    If Congress really wanted to end the war all they have to do is not fund it. It requires 60% in the Senate and majority vote in the House to continue to fund the operations. US House, which controls the purse strings, could end the war tomorrow by voting to cut it off. 

     

    They instead are trying to shift the ending of the war to the Senate intentionally in a way that does not impact funding, which is harder to do politically, they know that.  

     

    One or two senators could potentially block a bill in the Senate or at least slow it way down. It is difficult to pass legislation. 

     

    When I was in the ASUI Senate, I use to slow down appointments to paid positions that were made to buddies of other elected officials. I wanted people that were best for the job, not someone getting a check because they helped their frat buddy with campaigning. Today, appointments now have to go through a process that screens out individuals not qualified, but it was not that way when I was in, the victor went the spoils and ASUI paychecks.

     

    There is a whole host of motions and parliamentary procedures, filibustering, and other tactics a senator can use to slow down or disrupt legislation. Two senators can place huge road blocks in the way of legislation they really disagree with.  If a committee chair can also wage more havoc as well. 

     

    Best,

     

    Donovan

     

    

Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/21/07, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> The reason the US Senate is stalling on the withdraw of troops from Iraq is
> because it knows two things;
>
> 1) That the people that voted for them what an end to the war now and what
> the troops back home.
>
> and
>
> 2) That if the US withdraws troops from Iraq it would have negative
> repercussions and that it vital to US interests to keep troops there.

Donovan --

The US Senate is failing to end the war because a withdrawal requires
a 60-vote majority to break a Republican filibuster (which they have
done every time it has come to a vote) and a 66-vote majority to break
a Bush veto threat. In the House of Representatives, where party unity
and the number of defectors needed is higher, breaking a Bush veto is
almost impossible, given the tiny Democratic majority.

Thus the Republicans hold us in an unwinnable morass for yet another year.

-- ACS
   
    
    
---------------------------------
  
  Building a website is a piece of cake. 
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.



       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070722/1666da76/attachment-0001.html