18
   

Despite a bipartisan effort...

 
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 09:52 am
The Dems were still able to stuff their pork-laden $819 billion 'Recovery' bill down the throats of our grandchildren.

$50 mil for arts? I don't even want to start. This wasn't a recovery plan. This was a pure, Dems at their best, pork plan. Even some in their on their own party couldn't hold their nose and vote for it.

And now they own it...
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 10:09 am
@A Lone Voice,
Do you have the text or an analysis of the bill I could look at?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 10:15 am
@A Lone Voice,
You're bitching about 50 million out of 800 billion?

What's the Republicans recovery plan? The old standby, cut taxes for the rich.

No thanks.

Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 10:18 am
This is just the house bill, though, right? Plenty of time to trim the pork when reconciling with the Senate, I hope.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 10:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,


Tax cuts combined with the reduction in the size of our government is the only way to make things better.

This democrat plan to spend billions while expanding government will lead to double
digit inflation like this country experienced in the 70's under president Jimmy Carter.

PrezBO, Pelosi and Reid are going to ruin this country ASAP.

No thanks.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 12:15 pm
@FreeDuck,
Free Duck,
Surely you jest...the Senate....cut pork??? Since when has any member of Congress let slip the opportunity to add pork....More likely you'll see the bill approach or pass the trillion dollar mark...
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 12:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's more than 50 million out of 800 billion...it's more like 710 Billion of the 800 Billion is for pork...according to the Wall Street Journal


maporsche
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 12:58 pm
@slkshock7,
Even if it's only 50 billion, it SHOULDN'T BE THERE!

Are we in such good times that we can look at borrowing $50,000,000,000 and think "eh, it's only 50B".

**** Barack Obama if this **** doens't get cleaned up. He's mortgaging MY future.
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 12:59 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

It's more than 50 million out of 800 billion...it's more like 710 Billion of the 800 Billion is for pork...according to the Wall Street Journal



Yeah, the WSJ is not what one would call objective, being an extremely fiscal conservative rag.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 01:02 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Even if it's only 50 billion, it SHOULDN'T BE THERE!

Are we in such good times that we can look at borrowing $50,000,000,000 and think "eh, it's only 50B".

**** Barack Obama if this **** doens't get cleaned up. He's mortgaging MY future.


It's 50 million, not 50 billion. About 1% of the bill. And it does help create jobs. It isn't as if that money is going to just be thrown in the toilet. It all goes to people who need work as much as everyone else.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 01:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

It's more than 50 million out of 800 billion...it's more like 710 Billion of the 800 Billion is for pork...according to the Wall Street Journal



Yeah, the WSJ is not what one would call objective, being an extremely fiscal conservative rag.

Cycloptichorn


How dare they criticize Obama?! What a bunch of assholes those Wall Street Journal people are!
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 01:06 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

It's more than 50 million out of 800 billion...it's more like 710 Billion of the 800 Billion is for pork...according to the Wall Street Journal



Yeah, the WSJ is not what one would call objective, being an extremely fiscal conservative rag.

Cycloptichorn


How dare they criticize Obama?! What a bunch of assholes those Wall Street Journal people are!


I don't care if they want to criticize Obama. But their political and economic analysis is worthless. Almost as much as Mankiw's idiocy you posted on the other thread.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 01:09 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:



**** Barack Obama if this **** doens't get cleaned up. He's mortgaging MY future.


http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:31 pm
@H2O MAN,
Bushes 350 billion stimulas bill went to banks who dont have to account for how they spend the money and the repubs complain about 50 million for the arts. I read that the CEOs got 40 billion in compensation for screwing up the economy. I wonder how much of the money they got was tax money that Bush gave them and why the repubs are not complaining about the bush giveaway. But with the repubs mindset I dont have to wonder why 55% of the populace voted democrat this election cycle.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:41 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
**** Barack Obama if this **** doens't get cleaned up. He's mortgaging MY future.


Was there ever that degree of anger shown on your part towards GWB for the incredible mess, which I must remind you, he has left for Obama and the Democratic Congress to clean up?

How about a little thought given to the Iraqis whose futures GWB royally fucked up. It shouldn't always be about you assholes who think that you have a dog given right to happiness and material success.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:54 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:

Do you have the text or an analysis of the bill I could look at?


Here's a link to the entire bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show

Yes, the Senate has plenty of time to fix this. But it shouldn't have even got this far.

Here are some of the lowlights:

-$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings.
-$600 million to purchase cars for the Federal government
-$650 million for those digital TV coupons (adding to the millions already spent)
-
But here is the worst part:

$252 billion in pure entitlement spending:

-$81 billion in Medicaid
-$36 billion in expanded unemployment benefits
-$20 billion in food stamps
-$83 billion in 'earned income credit', which are tax rebates' for those who don't pay taxes.

I don't think this is what President Obama had in mind when he said his stimulus package was going to be pork free. In fact, this wasn't an Obama bill, or something I would expect from him based on his campaign and statements he has made when president elect.

But this is sure what I would expect from a Nancy Pelosi left-wing congress...

Little of this bill will be going to infrastructure. This is a big time liberal Democrat spending bill; nothing more. And the repubs obviously recognized it for what it was.

Hey, you 'progressives' are in charge now. Your leaders in congress don't have to fool the public; just call 'em as you see 'em. But Nancy and company are once again trying to slip one by, and I'm glad the repubs are calling them out...
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
True, Cyclo, the WSJ is a fiscal conservative rag and Obama's certainly proving himelf to not have a fiscally conservative bone in his body....

I don't happen to agree with WSJ 89% pork figure, but just read thru the bill and the pork is most certainly there. In addition to the $50M for the arts, you've got $650M for laggards who were too lazy to request converter coupons before analog TV signals are cut off, $100M for scientific research on global warming, $60 million for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program and $40 million for Mth and Science Partnerships, $300M for rebates to folks buying "Energy Star" appliances, $100M for Non-Intrusive Inspection Technology (Cargo) (incidently this appears to be owned by an Australian company so I guess Congress is intent on spreading our tax payer dollars to help unemployment in Australia as well), and $79B to help states whose Governors refuse to make the hard decisions that would make their own states solvent.

It doesn't take any digging at all to find that this bill is rampant with pork and needs some severe surgery before it should be supported by any fiscally responsible congressman.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:57 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Do you really not understand how some of the things you mentioned get turned right around into economic activity?

I mean, a child could understand this stuff. But apparently you Republicans cannot. It's baffling.

One day you will be drawing your 'entitlement' check just like everyone else. And you won't bitch about it then. Until the day I see Republicans turning down their piece of our social programs, I really could care less about the bitching.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:57 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
-$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings.
-$600 million to purchase cars for the Federal government
-$650 million for those digital TV coupons (adding to the millions already spent)
-
But here is the worst part:

$252 billion in pure entitlement spending:

-$81 billion in Medicaid
-$36 billion in expanded unemployment benefits
-$20 billion in food stamps
-$83 billion in 'earned income credit', which are tax rebates' for those who don't pay taxes.

I don't think this is what President Obama had in mind when he said his stimulus package was going to be pork free


Ummmmm, this ain't pork.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 02:58 pm
@JTT,
JTT, you don't pay attention do you?

Yes, I was extremely frustrated about GWB's ENTIRE presidency. Well beyond my current level of frustration.
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Despite a bipartisan effort...
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2019 at 08:23:27