4
   

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill"

 
 
Woiyo9
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 08:14 am
" 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."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Democrats-propose-410B-apf-14450221.html

WTF???

Didn't they just ram 800B through last week?

Is this all the Democratic Party can do is pass spending bills when we are faced with a budget crisis?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 1,338 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:22 am
I see that the building industry has taken some tentative steps toward recovery in that building permits are up for the first time since Dec 07.
If the recovery stimulus becomes a success, the GOp "nonparticipants" are gonna look really stupid.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:39 am
@farmerman,
What does that have to do with the above?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:25 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

" 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."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Democrats-propose-410B-apf-14450221.html

WTF???

Didn't they just ram 800B through last week?

Is this all the Democratic Party can do is pass spending bills when we are faced with a budget crisis?


It worked for the last 8 years...bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Where was the outrage then?
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:32 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Again, you show just how stupid you really are. Must come from your monkey genes.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor.

Yet, my point that you could never understand is that to back this spending bill against the stimulus bill without knowing Treasury's action for the Banks seems to be misguided and arrogant on the part of the Dummycrats in the House.

But of course you are to stupids to understand that.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:39 am
@Woiyo9,
My ancestors were smart enough to grab an entire continent from yours..
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:35 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
But your ancestors were too stupid to know what to do with it.

You are the poster child for white man's poor choices. Didn't your momma know about abortions or did Dad miss the mark and run the good stuff down your mothers leg?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:20 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. Must come from your monkey genes.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor.

Yet, my point that you could never understand is that to back this spending bill against the stimulus bill without knowing Treasury's action for the Banks seems to be misguided and arrogant on the part of the Dummycrats in the House.

But of course you are to stupids to understand that.


For sure our President and the Congress he was stuck with were sure no fiscal conservatives, and with very few exceptions, I think we who tilt right of center were quite vocal that we were not okay with that then and we are all pretty vocal that we are not okay with it now.

It does seem though that the so-called 'progressives' who couldn't find ANYTHING they liked about the Bush administration are willing to tolerate and/or even approve the very same stuff being promoted by this administration. Now trillion dollar deficits are no problem, war is good, ear marks are nothing, broken promises not important enough to even discuss.

Rewind to the bimbo eruptions in the Clinton administration. According to the progressive feminists, anybody accusing anybody of ANY kind of sexist language or ANYTHING that could even remotely be attached to sexual harrassment would not possibly bring it up if it wasn't true. Women didn't lie about things like sexual abuse or sexual harrassment or attempted rape or rape. The accused was automatically guilty......until the Clinton administration. But anybody making accusations about him would be researched and investigated and bashed in the media and judged to be automatically lying and was reduced to trash chasing dollar bills through trailer parks.

Do you ever wonder what it is that some progressives REALLY believe about anything other than bashing or making snotty remarks about anybody who isn't them?

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 07:46 pm
Wow, there's an image I could have done without.

On-topic, though: you do realize that this bill is paying for something different than the last one, right?

It's not like we're paying twice for the same stuff.

See, when you say 'didn't we just spend 800 billion?!?!?!' and act all shocked, it makes me wonder if you do understand this fact.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 09:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Duh.... Yea....Exactly.

I heard some lame excuse that this is leftover stuff from the Bush administration.

WASHINGTON " The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the largest spending bills in the nation’s history, a $787 billion measure meant to rejuvenate a sluggish economy.

The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to send his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress. He did not take a formal position on the bill passed by the House.

“It’s a big document,” a White House official said. “We are still reviewing it.”

Republicans, however, did not mince words in describing the spending bill as wasteful. And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine.

Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said Mr. Obama’s call for fiscal responsibility, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, was “sandwiched between two wasteful spending bills.”

Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, pointed out that the new bill came just two days after the White House held a forum to promote fiscal restraint.

The legislation includes nine of the regular appropriations bills for this fiscal year. Unable to reach agreement with President George W. Bush last year, Congress provided most domestic agencies and programs with a short-term infusion of cash, which runs out at the end of next week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26spend.html
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 09:56 am
I hope Obama veto's this bill.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:08 am
@maporsche,
I would give him huge kudos for that, but I hope you aren't holding your breath as that seems unlikely. I would be encouraged and would give him kudos if he would just encourage the members of his party to show some fiscal restraint, but it doesn't look like that will happen either.

Our President is discovering that high minded, great sounding rhetoric is not governing and it's a whole lot easier to talk a good game about governing than it is to actually do it. I hope he gets his sea legs real soon because right now he is beginning to look like a puppet manipulated by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other big guns of the party. I would like to see him demonstrate some real courage and do the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing as that is what the country most needs right now.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:12 am
@Foxfyre,
I'm not holding my breath of course, but I do hope this will happen. I mean he's talked so much about fiscal responsibilty and against politics as usual for him to veto this would be very consistent with his words.

Of course, he's a politician, and they aren't the honest types.

But yeah, here's to hope.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@Cycloptichorn,
As usual, Cyclops either doesn't know what he is talking about or he is defending the indefensible-

Note-from USA Today2/26/09

Budget projects deficit will quadruple, jump to $1.75T

What's this?By Richard Wolf and David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON " Federal deficits would remain above $500 billion annually for the next decade under the budget proposed by President Obama Thursday, sending the federal debt soaring to $23 trillion by 2019.
The deficit this year would jump to a record $1.75 trillion, nearly quadrupling the 2008 figure.

*****************************************************************
EXPLAIN AWAY THE 1.75 TRILLION WHICH QUADRUPLES THE 2008 FIGURE- CYCLOPS!!!!
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:14 am
@Woiyo9,
It's obvious, Woiyo9, that Obama can't control the Democrats in the House. They probably take their marching orders from Nancy Pelosi. As the link below makes clear, Obama PROMISED to go line by line to remove "earmarks"--both Democrat and Republican from the Budget Bill. He won't because he is just a good speaker who is completely in over his head.

Note:

9,000 earmarks in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill: Gang tattoo removal, Maine lobster, La Raza & more!
By Michelle Malkin • February 23, 2009 11:11 PM

You want earmarks? There are lots and lots and lots of earmarks in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill coming down the road. Not that any of the people who are going to vote for it will actually read it, of course. If they did, they couldn’t look into the camera and sanctimoniously declare that, uh, you know, “There are no earmarks.”

The Modesto Bee reports:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.

“We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that’s riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.

The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks " loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress " were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.

So while Obama and McCain were slamming earmarks on the camp aign trail, House and Senate members " Democrats and Republicans " were slapping them into spending bills.

“It will be a little embarrassing for the president if he signs a bill with that many earmarks on it,” said Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget analyst.
Hill staffer Tom Jones is going through the omnibus spending bill with a fine-tooth comb, and Twittering his earmark findings, including:

* $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program,” pg. 283;

*Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173;

*$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment,” pg. 232;

*and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212.

0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:16 am
He had better veto this.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:18 am
Well, I'd like to see how it turns out in the Senate. Often times the house goes nuts and the Senate pares down.

But if it's full of earmarks, Obama SHOULD veto it. Hopefully he can get them to change that before it comes to this.

Cycloptichorn
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 02:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Itis full of earmarks, Cyclops. You may, of course, show that the list below is incorrect, If you do, you destroy the charge about earmarks. But,please, no flummery about--"If it's full of earmarks" It is. Read below---

Re: Woiyo9 (Post 3583926)
It's obvious, Woiyo9, that Obama can't control the Democrats in the House. They probably take their marching orders from Nancy Pelosi. As the link below makes clear, Obama PROMISED to go line by line to remove "earmarks"--both Democrat and Republican from the Budget Bill. He won't because he is just a good speaker who is completely in over his head.

Note:

9,000 earmarks in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill: Gang tattoo removal, Maine lobster, La Raza & more!
By Michelle Malkin • February 23, 2009 11:11 PM

You want earmarks? There are lots and lots and lots of earmarks in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill coming down the road. Not that any of the people who are going to vote for it will actually read it, of course. If they did, they couldn’t look into the camera and sanctimoniously declare that, uh, you know, “There are no earmarks.”

The Modesto Bee reports:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.

“We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that’s riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.

The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks " loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress " were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.

So while Obama and McCain were slamming earmarks on the camp aign trail, House and Senate members " Democrats and Republicans " were slapping them into spending bills.

“It will be a little embarrassing for the president if he signs a bill with that many earmarks on it,” said Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget analyst.
Hill staffer Tom Jones is going through the omnibus spending bill with a fine-tooth comb, and Twittering his earmark findings, including:

* $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program,” pg. 283;

*Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173;

*$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment,” pg. 232;

*and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212.

*****************************************************************

Of course, Cyclops, you may feel that this article is wrong. If you do, I await your rebuttal of the SPECIFICS listed, If not ---I T S T A N D S.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » House Democrats propose $410B spending bill"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 07:03:08