55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:49 pm
@Foxfyre,
I did not say the appropriations bill is online, Fox; but that the spending bill already passed is online. Your error confused me as to what you were talking about. When you erroneously said 'already passed,' you made an error which led to our misunderstanding. Surely you realize this? Yes? Enough with the bullshit quibbling then, let's move on.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:52 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:

2. C.I. and Cyclops:

What's the deal? Are you channeling each other?

JM


What does this mean?

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Pundits are getting their first look at the most recent appropriations bill passed by Pelosi and company. . . .

What do you think the odds are that he will think $200,000 for tattoo removal is an unnecessary expense especially in the midst of an economic meltdown and crisis?


Most recent appropriations bill passed:

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_B.pdf

Foxfyre wrote:
I admit I erred in when the bill was passed. But I did say appropriations bill. I know the difference between an appropriations bill and the stimulus package.


FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:01 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:


FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.


I was wondering when someone was going to point this out for Fox.

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
And I can't qualify for certain jobs because I'm too old or too fat or too something. Will the govenrment pay for plastic surgery, a good spa, or whatever else I need to qualify for the job I want? A worthy enterprise if I am unemployed and a drain on the national treasury for sure, but would you consider that part of the legislative intent to assist with the unemployed. Or would that be pork?

(A more MAC approach would suggest that I take whatever work I can find--those tattoos aren't disqualifying those ex-gang members from all gainful employment--and I should save up enough for my own cosmetic adjustments and qualify myself for the job I want. It should not be DebraLaw's or anybody elses responsibility or burden to provide me with that.


Quote:
Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service.


LINK

How are you enjoying that new furnace, Foxfyre? You got your old fat ass off the couch to stand in the handouts for furnaces line. How much community service did you perform in exchange for your greedy little hypocritical "MAC" dip into the government pool?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:11 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

If the AP's demonstration of skepticism is a harbinger of things to come, this would mark a turning point in voter education. Perhaps, there is hope for us MAC's and, therefore, the country itself! I've always thought that, given a balanced view of issues and solution sets for their resolution, Americans will make the right choices. MAC's should continue to post these ear marks until regular voters are educated and become tired of all the pork coming from Congress. MAC's should politely and constantly hammer away at this. 2010 can't come too soon.


In the last few weeks, I haven't seen much that is encouraging coming from our government, but the AP story did lift my spirits. It is the first glimmer of hope that I've had in awhile that American journalism had not so prostituted itself that it is lost to us forever. Maybe, just maybe, the Fourth Estate can be resurrected as the independent public watchdog and insurer of transparency that it once was.

Quote:
I propose that no politician be allowed to speak to the press live. All comments and speeches would be taped and only released after the new government agency, known as the DLGR (Dept of "Let's Get Real"), fact checks the content and provides truthful revisions if needed. We could then run the tape of the politicians' words concurrent with the truth. Perhaps like those speeches aired where there is a person in a little box in one of the corners of the screen, you know, like they use for ASL for the deaf.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Did you ever see the movie "Liar, Liar"?

I wonder what kind of government we would have if politicians, reporters, political ads, everything put out there to inorm or influence the public had to be the absolutely truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth except in matters of national security? How refreshing that would be. But they'd just make that tattoo removal thing a matter of national security I guess.

And they would just make the DLGR into another huge bureaucracy and then change the rules.

I would be happy if they would just change the law to make it illegal for our lawmakers to 'revise and amend' their remarks at the end of the day or change any vote after the fact. If we cannot catch them on camera, at least they would no longer be able to lie to the Congressional Record. And they would no longer be able to bundle unrelated things into any bill--they would have to vote straight up or straight down on a tattoo removal expense, for instance, and be on the record as to how they voted.

Quote:
Some questions:

1. Doesn't the Constitution charge members of Congress with the duty of passing laws and appropriations for the good of the whole country or is it still constitutional to stoop to parochialism?


The Congress has circumvented the Constitution every chance they have now for decades.

Quote:
2. C.I. and Cyclops:

What's the deal? Are you channeling each other?


I call this the progressive pack mentality. Smile
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:11 pm
@Debra Law,
quote wrote:
And I can't qualify for certain jobs because I'm too old or too fat or too something. Will the govenrment pay for plastic surgery, a good spa, or whatever else I need to qualify for the job I want?

I'm sure it would, if it wasn't for those conservatives who opposed Larry Flynt's request that the adult entertainment industry be included in the stimulus package.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
James Morrison is just jealous. LOL
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:25 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.


It is? Please point out the specific programs that it funds and the amounts allocated to them and whether the funding is for this year or multi-years or what. And here I thought the stimulus package was an authorization bill like the budget and not an appropriations bill. Of course I could be wrong.

Quote:
In the United States, two types of legislation are used to spend money. An authorization establishes a program that will later spend the money, but may not provide any funding. A mandatory program is one that does not need an additional piece of legislation known as an appropriation in order for spending to occur. The authority for spending to occur for the mandatory program is included in the authorization legislation. Social security benefits are an example of a "mandatory" program. An authorization can create programs and make known the intent of the United States Congress about the level of spending for programs that also require an appropriation. What distinguishes a mandatory program from a discretionary program is that after Congress enacts a law creating a mandatory program, the program is permitted to spend funds until the program expires based on a provision in law, or until a subsequent law either terminates the program or reauthorizes it. "Discretionary" programs typically require annual appropriations legislation.

An appropriation bill is used to actually provide money to "discretionary" programs. Appropriations are generally done on an annual basis, although multi-year appropriations are occasionally passed. According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 12), military appropriations cannot be for more than two years at a time. An annual appropriation requires that the funds appropriated be obligated (spent) by the end of the fiscal year of the appropriation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill


And wouldn't you think a little dog hiding behind your skirts would have pointed out that the stimulus package was an 'appropriations bill' if he had actually thought of it and/or had a clue? Of course it would have made him look even more clueless.

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Laughing

Madly spinning, madly, to avoid admitting that it was your error in writing which led to others' misunderstanding of your point.

And I hardly have to 'hide behind skirts' to kick your ass, rhetorically speaking, Fox. I've been doing it for years, and it's really old hat at this point. You may note that we were well into this conversation before Deb came along.

Not that I care much, this is getting pretty ******* boring. And I even agree with you; there should be no earmarks in the upcoming bill, Republican or Democrat, and if there are in there, I want to see them removed.

I guess it would help if we were very specific about what is an 'earmark.' Is it something that is done in secret? Is it any money which is specifically targeted towards an area? The conversation gets confusing without specific definitions.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:34 pm
@Debra Law,
Oh and I didn't have to stand in line to get the tax credit for the furnace. It was a check off item on the 1040 and Turbo Tax handled it nicely. If it hadn't been there, we would have bought the furnace anyway, however, though I never object to my government allowing me to keep more of my own money. My fat ass has been nice and warm all winter. Thank you for asking.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I thought you wanted to give it a rest. We can do a full review if you like. But it does get fu*king boring when all you have to offer is cluelessness, ad hominem, and straight out personal insults isn't it?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I thought you wanted to give it a rest. We can do a full review if you like. But it does get fu*king boring when all you have to offer is cluelessness, ad hominem, and straight out personal insults isn't it?


No, the personal insults are fun. What's boring is your mendacity on this issue.

You made a mistake, you even admitted making the mistake, but you kept yelling at others for making posts based on your mistake. There is a logical disconnect there; don't you see this?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
We can still do that full review. I still clearly know the difference between the stimulus package and an appropriation bill. You clearly did not and do not. I clearly stated appropriations bill. But even after I pointed out that the bill wasn't voted on yet, you still kept it up. All you had to do is admit you missed that one word and misunderstood what I was saying and you would have looked a whole bunch smarter.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

We can still do that full review. I still clearly know the difference between the stimulus package and an appropriation bill. You clearly did not and do not. I clearly stated appropriations bill. But even after I pointed out that the bill wasn't voted on yet, you still kept it up. All you had to do is admit you missed that one word and misunderstood what I was saying and you would have looked a whole bunch smarter.


Well, I still clearly know which bills have been passed and which have not. Can't say the same for you.

I didn't misunderstand what you were saying; you mis-spoke, and my mistake was in assuming you knew what you were talking about.

All I really have to do to make myself look smart is engage you in further conversation, Fox. It reflects well upon me.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:59 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

If the AP's demonstration of skepticism is a harbinger of things to come, this would mark a turning point in voter education. Perhaps, there is hope for us MAC's and, therefore, the country itself! I've always thought that, given a balanced view of issues and solution sets for their resolution, Americans will make the right choices. MAC's should continue to post these ear marks until regular voters are educated and become tired of all the pork coming from Congress. MAC's should politely and constantly hammer away at this. 2010 can't come too soon.


Voters need to be educated? Why? Because they didn't know about earmarks? I don't think, by the year 2010, that the voters will have forgotten about the earmarks that Republican Sen. Ted Stevens obtained for the State of Alaska. I don't think the voters will soon forget how the Republicans financially raped our country while they were lining their own pockets. Regardless of the size of your hammer, you are overly optimistic if you think "MAC's" can convince the voters that Republicans deserve another chance to ruin us all over again.

The voters were hit hard with the issues. They witnessed first hand the devastating results of Republican representation wherein the poor and the middle class were constantly thrown under the bus and now we're paying the price. The voters rejected the Republicans and their failed ideology. It'll be a long time before these losers will be in any position to woo back what they have deservedly lost.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Debra Law wrote:


FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.


I was wondering when someone was going to point this out for Fox.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 05:10 pm
Interesting article on the appropriations bill: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending_14
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So they did get it done today. I haven't had a chance to keep up with the debate today. Did you read the article you posted CI?

The most chilling sentence in it was this one:
Quote:
After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects "


Okay, I have a whole bunch of really swell bridges to bet that he isn't going to work real hard to keep earmarks out of future appropriations bills distributing the monies authorized in the stimulus package either,
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 05:48 pm
@Foxfyre,
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/2-5-09pig120090208120405.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 01:13:43