[politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Obligatory bbc news link

I'm not that interested in the topic per se (well actually I am and I think his decision is either daft unscientific pandering to close-minded ignorant hicks or an enlightened move away from government inteference depending on whether the day contains an "n" or not). I was just wondering, couldn't find this on the internet, how often vetos of bills by US Presidents are and what sort of proposals have been vetoed before?

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Not too sure to be honest, although I doubt this is a rare case of an american president vetoing something he disagrees with.

The bill I believe will now go back to the Senate or House of Reps and if it passes there again by 2/3 majority (which is quite difficult I believe) then the presidents veto is overriden.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

While my knowledge of the inner workings of the US political systems are restricted to pretty much what I've learnt from watch The West Wing I wouldnt imagine veto's happen very often.

On the West Wing when Bartlett veto'd a bill they were all worried about how weak he would look if the veto was overturned. As that article states any veto is overturned if 2/3rds of the senate vote for the bill. It would probally have to be something they really were pasionate about and which they were extreamly sure about 'winning' to risk underminding their Presidency

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Found it!


PS They already sent it back and it failed to get the 2/3 majority. Also reading the list it looks like Reagan was a complete wanker :(

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Roosevelt was veto happy wasnt he :)

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

In fairness cleveland nearly managed as many in eight years.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

This is George Bush's first veto.

Obviously, it's more common when the President and the Congress are of different political parties.

A veto is overridden only by a two-thirds majority in both houses.


With respect to the bill itself, it's far more politics than science. The bill addresses only federal funding, and only of embryonic (not adult) stem cells, and only for new lines of embryonic stem cells (not the existing lines approved in 2001).

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

You know I actually appreciate his veto. His point is that it is possible to make advances in medical sciences without comprising our moral values. He is basically drawing a clear line (that I can appreciate, even though I am pro-choice), and saying 'we can do better than this, go back and work harder.' The reason I can appreciate his point, is that it is important that we remember ethics when dealing with science and medicine. Maybe I do not think that single cells are 'humans' yet with all the rights of a conceived human, but despite it, I think he is making an important stance.

And also, Government has a clear role in regulating medicine, ok. If you think ensuring drugs are safe is 'government interference' then you scare me.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

So he's wrong but it's okay because his heart is in the right place?

You're such a statist you can't even conceive how ensuring drugs are safe could be done without government inteference :(

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

well, as it points out inthe article, his point is a bit hypocritical really, as they already provide funding for some, and ignore the fact that private funding pays for more of this type of research

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Right, just like deregulation of energy in California led to good things there (like Enron energy traders requesting that their plants shut down for a few hours to jack up energy costs causing rolling blackouts that shutdown not just power to homes but also to infrastructure like traffic lights oh, and businesses). PG&E's cromium addatives to the water were FANTASTIC also, all those children with bizarre forms of cancer will vouch for deregulation. They know that market forces will work things out in everyone's favor. Oh let's not forget the meat packing plants and the child laborers of the late 19th century.

You know if you want to believe in some naive ideal form of utopia where people care about the long term interests of others go ahead. I on the other hand have seen enough of what businesses will do when left unchecked. What conceivable model in alignment with your idals can you point to that has succeeded? What evidence do you rely on to support your beliefs?

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

The FDA adds about $800M to the cost of every new drug developed and several years delay before they reach market. This means drugs are more expensive and thousands of people die every year waiting for drugs that are otherwise available but not yet approved. Drugs with low(er) profit margins don't get developed at all. The tragedy is that we don't even end up with safe drugs (e.g., Vioxx).

I don't particularly trust businesses but they have to pay at least some attention to their customers or they go out of business and if they screw you over badly enough you can sue them. Good luck trying that with the FDA.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

It really varies depending on what party dominates Congress and which party is in the White House.

For example, Reagan had a Democrat-dominated Congress (both houses) while Clinton's administration from 1994 was in constant battle with an activist Republican Congress (Contract with America, Gingrich and all that). Roosevelt clocked up that stupid number of vetoes partly because he was in office for so long (four terms), and partly because it was his method of controlling Congress (as opposed to LBJ's, which was to meet with Congressmen - Roosevelt used it to remind Congress they were being watched).

An amusing link to an article published by a conservative think-tank about Clinton's use of the veto, circa 1996.

Types of bills overridden:

George H. W. Bush (snr)
1989: Vetoed an increase in the minimum wage.
1991: Vetoed a spending bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments because of language on funding abortions.
1992: Vetoed a campaign finance bill.
1992: Vetoed another bill to make employers provide family medical leaves.
1992: Vetoed a bill on cable television competition. It was overridden.

Clinton
1995: Vetoed a bill on private securities litigation. It was overridden.
1996: Vetoed a welfare overhaul bill.
1996: Vetoed a bill to prohibit partial-birth abortions.
1997: Vetoed another attempt to ban partial-birth abortion.
1997: Vetoed a bill to restore military spending that he had removed using a line-item veto. It was overridden.
2000: Vetoed a bill to abolish federal inheritance taxes.


It's all fairly ideological stuff, and the clash between the parties is quite apparent in the bills that get vetoed.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Do you understand what advances stem cell research could bring to medicine? Its not something that can be easily worked around as they are the only source of totipotent cells.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

This is the sort of problem youre always going to have when the government is involved in funding scientifc research. Complaining about the stem cell issue is really a case of focusing on the symptoms rather than the disease; its fairly silly/naive/hypocritical to advocate state-funded science while also moaning that research is becoming politicised.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

There are many cases where people are quite aware that drugs arent 'safe' yet want to try them anyway. Some recent examples are anabolic steroids, ephedra, MDMA, and DDI . But yeah, obviously you and your ilk should be allowed to prevent people using the drugs they wish to use for whatever arbitrary reasons youve dreamed up this week.

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

You need to stop presuming I'm advocating some sort of return to the "bad old days" and realise there are other choices. Look at what I said. How can you ensure drugs are safe without government interference? How would you do it?

What evidence are you relying on? The overwhelming triumph of the nation-state in inflicting poverty on billions? The genius of government involved in medical research where we see things like this and this and this and the American injection of 400 prisoners with malaria in Chicago in 1940 (which is rather disgracefully undetailed on the internet)? There has been no model in alignment with my beliefs. So I have nothing to offer you. I can offer you more examples than you can count of what governments can do unchecked if you want though. Your false dichotomy distresses me immensely :(

Re: [politics]Stupid president makes moronic decision
 

Ok ok, good points. I hadn't considered all of that. Sorry if I was presuming. Also agree with nodrog that people should be able to make their own choices about what drugs they take.