Azazello1313 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans. The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion. The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week. Democrats defended the spending increases, saying they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects Why can't these lawmakers simply pass a pork bill. Make a spending bill entirely for pork...I am so sick of this crap getting added. How many good pieces of legislation do we even not know about fail because pork is added....McCain should keep this front and center for the next republican nominee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The American people really don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The American people really don't care. The problem...perch...is that is true. Most people only care about themselves. We have ceased to be a nation of Americans and are simply a nation of individuals who claim the prize of American. People only care when it effect them and they can discern it. We don't think big picture any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The problem...perch...is that is true. Most people only care about themselves. We have ceased to be a nation of Americans and are simply a nation of individuals who claim the prize of American. People only care when it effect them and they can discern it. We don't think big picture any longer. Government needs to be stripped down to bare bones. Give us defense, give us border control, give us interstate highways, and I'll even throw in give us mail carriers as long as their boss isn't making more than the president and I don't have to watch any more commercials. Make sure states don't set up state tariffs. Other than that, let the states take care of the rest as they see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Government needs to be stripped down to bare bones. Give us defense, give us border control, give us interstate highways, and I'll even throw in give us mail carriers as long as their boss isn't making more than the president and I don't have to watch any more commercials. Make sure states don't set up state tariffs. Other than that, let the states take care of the rest as they see fit. Don't really have a problem with that...except the fact that the markets are my...yours...the guys down the streets. Most the time we get confused making capitalistic principles govern our country over the democratic ones that we fought for time and time again. I don't mind big government...but it has to work....if it doesn't work...cut out what doesn't. Most Americans are actually closer together in ideology than they would like to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 So less than 1% of the bill is earmarks? I'd say that might be an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 So less than 1% of the bill is earmarks? I'd say that might be an improvement. I'm glad you are happy with $3.8 Billion in vote buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 So less than 1% of the bill is earmarks? I'd say that might be an improvement. spin baby! the quote is, "There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion." so in other words, that just what the reporter caught on his first skim. the more important line is the one after...."The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year..." how do you justify a one-year 8% increase in basic day-to-day government spending at a time when inflation is flat with a risk of going negative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 All the economists I've heard and read talking about our current crisis don't seem like they are worried too much about inflation, it's deflation that's the major concern. But no, I don't like "pork" either. Just trying to look on the bright side. Not much of that nowadays though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 spin baby! the quote is, "There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion." so in other words, that just what the reporter caught on his first skim. the more important line is the one after...."The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year..." how do you justify a one-year 8% increase in basic day-to-day government spending at a time when inflation is flat with a risk of going negative? I think he was saying that if the 3.8 figure is the total...it represents 1% and he could live with that if it stays that way going forward. Remember when some were complaining about the spending habits of the previous 8 years....and the retort was always that the deficits were in line with historical % of GDP. I sure hope you do. That is the same stupid spin. When we are deficit spending, we should not be adding pork to necessary spending....and that spending better damn well be necessary....I think to this you and I agree. But to simply smack Cap for his statement when the % argument of GDP is how republicans argued debt over the last 8 years is almost funny. Wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 If this 3.8 billion becomes a total waste and doesn't benefit America in anyway, I promise I'll be 1/150th as P'd off than the 600 billion we've currently spent in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think he was saying that if the 3.8 figure is the total...it represents 1% and he could live with that if it stays that way going forward. Remember when some were complaining about the spending habits of the previous 8 years....and the retort was always that the deficits were in line with historical % of GDP. I sure hope you do. That is the same stupid spin. When we are deficit spending, we should not be adding pork to necessary spending....and that spending better damn well be necessary....I think to this you and I agree. But to simply smack Cap for his statement when the % argument of GDP is how republicans argued debt over the last 8 years is almost funny. Wouldn't you agree? I can't even follow what you think you might be arguing here. this bill represents an 8% increase in discretionary spending over the previous fiscal year. I have no idea what deficit-as-percentage-of-GDP has to do with this, except that with negative GDP growth, flat-to-negative inflation, an 8% increase in the discretionary budget PLUS this massive stimulus bill, sending more troops to afghanistan, etc., the deficits over the next several years are NOT going to be in line with historical deficits as % of GDP. deficits as percentage of GDP are going to EXPLODE over the next few years, particularly if all those trends hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I can't even follow what you think you might be arguing here. this bill represents an 8% increase in discretionary spending over the previous fiscal year. I have no idea what deficit-as-percentage-of-GDP has to do with this, except that with negative GDP growth, flat-to-negative inflation, an 8% increase in the discretionary budget PLUS this massive stimulus bill, sending more troops to afghanistan, etc., the deficits over the next several years are NOT going to be in line with historical deficits as % of GDP. deficits as percentage of GDP are going to EXPLODE over the next few years, particularly if all those trends hold. Again...I am not arguing against you on this....just your off the mark response to cap. His argument was that if the pork is 1% of all spending, that he could live with that. Now, I disagree with him. All spending bills should be pork free and in this economy....spending should only happen for essential matters and cut where possible. Now...you criticized him for this...while letting republicans get on here and on TV justifying their pork and deficit spending by equating it to % of GDP. Cap was equating it to % of the spending bill itself...which in my opinion is the wrong way to look at it....but the retort you gave him was counter to the republican logic of the last 8 years....which is a logic you are a self subscriber too....you are a republican....I am a conservative....and sadly the two have no met in a very very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I didn't say "I could live with it". I just said, that might be an improvement over past pork. I could be wrong. 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.