Jimmy Neutron Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Lied about what? Earmarks? Earlier in this thread, a Republican being interviewed failed to name even one. Can you? Can you justify Pelosi's frog swamp? Reid's high speed train is very porkish, considering there are failing bridges all around the country. If any of you have taken the time to read through that bill and argue there is no pork in it, you're just plain crazy. I think that's why the senators and reps didn't read it - they can maintain a degree of deniability. "What pork, I didn't see any pork." It's horse poopy and if anyone took the time to read it, they'd be pissed too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) One man's pork is another mans necessary funds to boost the economy. I mean, we aren't talking about bridges to nowhere, that I know of. The “pet projects” may not have been so easily identifiable in the House bill, but watchdog groups picked out some in the Senate version. "To say there are no earmarks, would not be an accurate statement. There are very few," said Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, Meh. Edited February 25, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/n...si-on-botox.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You do have to give the Democrats credit for having that ugly trained seal jump up and down behind Obama and slap it's fins together begging for fish everytime Obama told a lie or misrepresented something. It was a neat trick, but we couldn't figure out why. It must've been to keep the kids entertained? Maybe you two should go clubbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Wow tax cuts and minimum wage hitting $7.25. They better slow down. We don't want too many people getting rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 a trillion dollars in corporate welfare, welfare, pet projects, special interest payoffs...and we're quibbling over how much of it got in there via the earmarking process? look....nearly all earmarks are pork, but not all pork is earmarks. earmarking is a particular process where individual congressmen slip extra funding for a pet project in the back door of a bigger bill at the last minute so that most people either don't notice or don't put up a fight. the stimulus bill eschewed that process, and crammed all the pork in through the front door for all to see. and here they are bragging about the fact that there are no earmarks. criminy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) 3 Trillion They are even writing books about the war costing 3 Trillion. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dolla...t/dp/0393334171 Customer's statement: The numbers presented are mind boggling and numbing. How do you account for such huge numbers, and why haven't we known before that the numbers were this big? The answer lies, primarily, in accounting tricks used by the government to hide certain expenses of to put them off onto other budgets so that the true cost could never be accurately accounted for. It's quite a statement that the DOD flunked its last 7 audits; a trick that would send private company executives to prison. Edited February 25, 2009 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/2...dal-meditation/ What should government do? A Jindal meditation What is the appropriate role of government? Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that. But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government. So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course. And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens. The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/2...dal-meditation/The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead. so true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 a trillion dollars in corporate welfare, welfare, pet projects, special interest payoffs...and we're quibbling over how much of it got in there via the earmarking process? There's the root of it. The stimulus law is either good or bad, depending on your view. Those that think it's a bad idea call the whole thing pork, those that don't think it's a bad idea, don't. It's that simple. To those that think it's bad all government spending is bad, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government. So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course. if it's a valid public interest, why is it just now being stuck into a short-term stimulus bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) To those that think it's bad all government spending is bad, period. that retarded reductionism would even make h8tank blush. Edited February 25, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 that retarded reductionism would even h8tank blush. Really? You should list the non-pork for us. Start with defense - we can all have a laugh at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 buterupt He-he-heh...he said but erupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Really? You should list the non-pork for us. Start with defense - we can all have a laugh at that. so, that's really your position? that if you are opposed to the deficit-exploding trillion dollar stimulus bill, you must logically be opposed to any and all government spending? seriously, that is your argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/2...dal-meditation/ What should government do? A Jindal meditation What is the appropriate role of government? Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that. But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government. So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course. And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens. The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead. The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis. Luckily, another compromise was reached, courtesy of Henry Clay, and the crisis was avoided. Part of the compromise included a roll-back of tariffs to the 1816 levels over a 10-year period. When the period was up, however, the pro-Tariff Whigs decided to reapply them to pay for their "internal improvements." The only problem was these internal improvements benefited Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs. Shortly after that war broke out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis. Luckily, another compromise was reached, courtesy of Henry Clay, and the crisis was avoided. Part of the compromise included a roll-back of tariffs to the 1816 levels over a 10-year period. When the period was up, however, the pro-Tariff Whigs decided to reapply them to pay for their "internal improvements." The only problem was these internal improvements benefited Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs. Shortly after that war broke out. Might want to put this in quotes and/or link the source there Irishoutofwater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis. Luckily, another compromise was reached, courtesy of Henry Clay, and the crisis was avoided. Part of the compromise included a roll-back of tariffs to the 1816 levels over a 10-year period. When the period was up, however, the pro-Tariff Whigs decided to reapply them to pay for their "internal improvements." The only problem was these internal improvements benefited Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs. Shortly after that war broke out. Does this mean you're finally following through on your threat to move your business to Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I got such a bad vibe after watching Govenor Shamaylan ® after Obamas speech. I didnt see Obamas so I cant comment on it but it seemed like an election type of speech that that guy was making. Shooting down Obama and pumping up the republicans. I am not saying you have to bow at his feet and that he is beyond critisism but I expect more unity and support in our time of need not campaigning. This Country is Focked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I got such a bad vibe after watching Govenor Shamaylan ® after Obamas speech. I didnt see Obamas so I cant comment on it but it seemed like an election type of speech that that guy was making. Shooting down Obama and pumping up the republicans. I am not saying you have to bow at his feet and that he is beyond critisism but I expect more unity and support in our time of need not campaigning. This Country is Focked Jindal's eyes are on 2012. Mitt Romney will not let that happen though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Jindal's eyes are on 2012. Mitt Romney will not let that happen though. I thought Jindal was borderline unwatchable. It was obvious that he was reading and not speaking. Terrible way to make your first appearance in the national spotlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I thought Jindal was borderline unwatchable. It was obvious that he was reading and not speaking. Terrible way to make your first appearance in the national spotlight. I thought teleprompters made you look better, not worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I got such a bad vibe after watching Govenor Shamaylan ® after Obamas speech. I didnt see Obamas so I cant comment on it but it seemed like an election type of speech that that guy was making. Shooting down Obama and pumping up the republicans. I am not saying you have to bow at his feet and that he is beyond critisism but I expect more unity and support in our time of need not campaigning. This Country is Focked Jindal's 2012 campaign ended last night. Whether you liked what he had to say or not, Obama's speech was a home run in terms of tone and tenor, and following it up with nonsense and nonspecifics delivered with more mixed messages than even the Messiah threw out in the previous 70 minutes was nearly the definition of ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 so, that's really your position? that if you are opposed to the deficit-exploding trillion dollar stimulus bill, you must logically be opposed to any and all government spending? seriously, that is your argument? No, my position is simply that what one person sees as pork, another sees as stimulus. I happen to see a hugh proportion of defense spending as pork, or at the very least wasteful - you may not. You do, however, see this stimulus bill as "corporate welfare", etc and that is pretty much in line with political affiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The Iraqi war, when all is said and done, will have cost 3 trillion dollars. Mr. Obama has a looooong way to go. As will the stealfromus bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.