BBC NEWS | Americas | US House passes clean energy bill

What do you all think? If it gets through the Senate even remotely close to this version is it headed for a veto? Or does it, perhaps, mean genuine bad news for the oil barons?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Well, it reduces corporate welfare. A good thing, if I'm not mistaken.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

It'll get veto'd.

If it does, it's just more proof that Bush is in the pocket of big oil.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Nonsense, he was the one who wanted to veto the bill a couple of years ago that gave 15 billion dollars worth of tax breaks to oil companies.

Did he veto it?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Couldn't, passed with huge veto proof majorities so the best he could do was strike a deal with Congress to try and lessen all the pork and stuff in it. Exact same thing with the 285 Billion dollar highway bill passed last year (passed with like 90 odd in the Senate and 400+ in the House who all added in Pork for their districts) and all Bush could do was try and strike out a deal with them to lessen it by like a half million dollars as they had veto proof majorities. And bridges still fall down in spite of that sort of sickenning spending!

So why should Bush veto this one?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Because he'll be able to sustain this veto.

He's set to become the only President in history never to have a veto overidden.

At least for the historically challenged

Papers of George Washington

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I didn't know about Washington, so okay Bush is the first President since well...the first ever President not to have a veto over-ridden!

The two greatest presidents we ever had imo.

Knowing this Goober just makes me view George Washington in an ever greater light...he is truly the greatest President we ever had.

Thanks for the information.

He should veto it simply becuase it can be sustained?

What sort of convoluted nonsenseical logic is that?

Please explain.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

yes they have so much in common, they are both named George, and well, they both ............

OK, I won't object to your equating Bush with Washington, as long as you let me equate Clinton with say Jesus.........
After all they both wanted their disciples to eat them.........

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

*smirk*

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

No but there's no point in veto'ing something for the sake of it and then it being over-ridden. If that's the case then maybe trying to strike a better deal with those passing the legislation might be an idea so it isn't as bad as it could be? I guess you're appossed to diplomatic haggling now and would rather see confrontational show downs between the WH and Congress seeing as it suits your agenda?

Anyway those the reasons those Bills passed in the last Congress was because of the broad bi-partisan support enough to withstand a veto, why don't you criticise all of the Dems who voted in favor of this legislation who are apprently just as much "in the pocket" of big oil as you think Bush is?