4.5 Million for a boat nobody wanted.

[imported_Shivetya]

The 2,700 earmarks Congress put in the 2007 military spending bill cost $11.8 billion. The Pentagon didn't ask for the money in its budget and, because its budget is capped by law, cuts had to be made to find room for the favors.

Cleaning up Washington, more like cleaning up on the spoils.

If Pelosi and gang want money for their SCHIP program I know where to find it. It isn't on the backs of TWENTY TWO MILLION more smokers (the number calculated by many as what would be needed to fund the bill under their joke of a PAYGO system - hint PAYGO only says it has to show where funding comes from - not prove it can be funded)

If that is just the pork in the defense budget you can imagine how much is buried in other sectors.


There is more than enough money to rebuild bridges, fund health care for REAL CHILDREN, and other odds and ends, the problem is.... PORK PORK PORK.

Seems that corporations, unions, and PACs, are the only real concern of Washington.. as in, how much money can they get from them... its not like it costs a Congressman anything to give away tax dollars


Despite pledges to rein in pork, the Democratic Congress has included a combined 11,351 pork projects in the House and Senate appropriations bills.[1

Two other events stand out. Following the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) offered an amendment calling on the Senate to place a temporary moratorium on transportation pork until all structurally deficient bridges are repaired. Amazingly, the Senate voted 82-14 to prioritize pork over bridge repairs in the transportation budget.[6]

Then, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposed selling $4 billion worth of its valuable but vacant land in a super-wealthy area of west Los Angeles. This $4 billion could then have been used to provide additional medical care for America's veterans. However, this land is also surrounded by the Beverly Hills estates of individuals like Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, Tim McGraw, and Barry Bonds. When locals reportedly complained that this development would, among other things, impede the views from their mansions, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) inserted an earmark to cancel the land sale. The Senate voted 66-25 to side with the Beverly Hills millionaires.[7]

 

[Genx87]

Boy those Dems sure are making the image of a washington politician cleaner!

 

[dmcowen674]

Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist convicted of influence peddling, called the process "the favor factory."

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, who sponsors some earmarks, says that lawmakers find it easier to raise money from people they know from committee work. "I think it's very hard [for the public] not to have the impression that in some way what you do on the committee is some way related to how much money you get."

Originally posted by: Genx87
Boy those Dems sure are making the image of a washington politician cleaner!

They learned from the masters. Thank your buds for me.

 

[Genx87]

They learned from the masters. Thank your buds for me.

So what you are saying is the Dems are a party of no self control. Good to know you admit your gods are indeed fallible.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist convicted of influence peddling, called the process "the favor factory."

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, who sponsors some earmarks, says that lawmakers find it easier to raise money from people they know from committee work. "I think it's very hard [for the public] not to have the impression that in some way what you do on the committee is some way related to how much money you get."

Originally posted by: Genx87
Boy those Dems sure are making the image of a washington politician cleaner!

They learned from the masters. Thank your buds for me.

If you read the article, this was happening well before the Republicans showed up in DC.

It is standard politician first year training classes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Put it on ebay!

 

[techs]

Until we get the money out of politics these things will continue to happen.
Unfortunately the right wing considers money to be "speech".

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: techs
Until we get the money out of politics these things will continue to happen.
Unfortunately the right wing considers money to be "speech".

What does the left wing consider it? After all these articles simply point out that they lied to their own supporters and continue to do so.


Let me guess, they think money is a "right" ?

 

[techs]

Whoa. I just read the article. They passed the bill to buy the boat in 2003.
Thanks, Republicans.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs
Whoa. I just read the article. They passed the bill to buy the boat in 2003.
Thanks, Republicans.

by senator pat murray (D-Wash), congressman norm dicks (D-Wash 6th), and congressman brian baird (D-Wash 3rd).

And thank you, Democrats!



(this just goes to show that it isn't democrats or republicans who are at fault, it is congress that is at fault)

 

[theeedude]

Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

I for one would welcome such a debate and we can watch the politicians squirm as they try to justify the crap in thier spending bills.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

I for one would welcome such a debate and we can watch the politicians squirm as they try to justify the crap in thier spending bills.

I'd rather watch politicians squirm next year when they justify why they didn't override Bush's veto 😀

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

I for one would welcome such a debate and we can watch the politicians squirm as they try to justify the crap in thier spending bills.

I'd rather watch politicians squirm next year when they justify why they didn't override Bush's veto 😀

I am positive you would, because that is much easier for you to swallow than watching your party have to justify the pork they push through congress. It isnt that you are against wasteful spending and lavish corruption in DC. It is you care when it isnt your party doing it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

I for one would welcome such a debate and we can watch the politicians squirm as they try to justify the crap in thier spending bills.

I'd rather watch politicians squirm next year when they justify why they didn't override Bush's veto 😀

I am positive you would, because that is much easier for you to swallow than watching your party have to justify the pork they push through congress. It isnt that you are against wasteful spending and lavish corruption in DC. It is you care when it isnt your party doing it.

$4.5M is what, like 5 mins of Iraq? Please. You want to save some real money, get Democrats elected, and Republicans blocking healthcare for poor children is gonna help, so keep it

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Holding children's healthcare hostage to cleaning up pork? Classy. Stick with that strategy for 2008 😀

I for one would welcome such a debate and we can watch the politicians squirm as they try to justify the crap in thier spending bills.

I'd rather watch politicians squirm next year when they justify why they didn't override Bush's veto 😀

I am positive you would, because that is much easier for you to swallow than watching your party have to justify the pork they push through congress. It isnt that you are against wasteful spending and lavish corruption in DC. It is you care when it isnt your party doing it.

$4.5M is what, like 5 mins of Iraq? Please. You want to save some real money, get Democrats elected, and Republicans blocking healthcare for poor children is gonna help, so keep it

Pork is pork, like I said. You only care when it is Republicans doing it.

 

[palehorse]

Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

Clean up the pork and you have 12 billion to throw at healthcare. But nah, do the simpleton thing and tax the poor(smokers).

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

Clean up the pork and you have 12 billion to throw at healthcare. But nah, do the simpleton thing and tax the poor(smokers).

I am for taxing poor smokers. More incentive to quit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

Clean up the pork and you have 12 billion to throw at healthcare. But nah, do the simpleton thing and tax the poor(smokers).

I am for taxing poor smokers. More incentive to quit.

How noble

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

ohhh, STFU already about the "poor children" covered by SCHIP. There were decent reasons to veto the "new and improved" SCHIP; and, now that I've looked into it a bit, I think the original SCHIP needs to be done away with as well.

I'm all for providing health insurance to genuinely impoverished children aged 0-18, but the Dem's are stretching every limit to push UHC on us through a back door, and that's unacceptable.

Back on topic, as this issue goes way beyond the SCHIP bill, both parties are equally guilty of spending way too much fvcking money on pork bullsh*t.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

:thumbsup:

The solution is revolution.

 

[techs]

Universal health care is coming.
Get used to it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Pork is a very bi-partisan issue. Both major parties spend too much, and both parties are full of lying scumbags.

Maybe, but only one party is blocking healthcare for poor children. I guess I'll stick with the one that isn't 😉

ohhh, STFU already about the "poor children" covered by SCHIP. There were decent reasons to veto the "new and improved" SCHIP; and, now that I've looked into it a bit, I think the original SCHIP needs to be done away with as well.

I'm all for providing health insurance to genuinely impoverished children aged 0-18, but the Dem's are stretching every limit to push UHC on us through a back door, and that's unacceptable.

I can only hope the GOP sticks with your position till the end of 2008 😀