Another spending bill already???

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hello? Do you have a reading problem? "I am waiting for the pork REPORT" meaning I still haven't seen ACTUAL details of these THOUSANDS of earmarks tossed into this bill. Yes, some of the real spending was left over - I understand that but there are also issues with that - especially in light of the porkulus that was just passed.

so you have no idea what is in the bill, yet you are already calling it a pork? ...

you just proved yourself a trolling lier.

 

[theeedude]

Guess what, we are heading for a Great Depression 2, banks are insolvent, and companies and consumers are slashing spending. Your options are to have the government spend money to put people to work or have the government spending money to support people out of work.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

You arent getting it. Youre stuck in this game of but Bush would have! but McCain would have!" It doesnt excuse it AT ALL.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Obama passing the largest spending bill in history, eclipsing Bush's spending, burying us deeper into debt fast than Bush did, is evidence of Obama running on a platform of change?

It's too early to tell. If it is fairly successful then yes, if not then no.

How can you claim a platform of change is based on level of success on a spending bill, especially one that you claim would have been proposed by the opposition had they been elected?

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Maybe It will be fun to watch you apologize for your hero fucking this country up much worse than GWB has. Hell, only a month in office and he's off to a good start

you based that on.. 1 month of presidency? what an idiot you are...

yet you only realize after 8 yrs how fucked up GWB really is..

Well, I sincerely thought we were going to move FORWARD, not BACKWARD. And even if he balances the budget next year he will have already eclipsed Bush's spending. Its now in the history books that up till now Bush was NOT the biggest spender.

Im not sure what you mean by your second comment. I like Bush for some reasons and not so much for others. That hasnt changed....in fact, if you want to take the time to go back the last few years, I have bashed Bush more than I saluted him. So your comment is...well...off topic and incorrect.

what Bush did for the past 8 yrs was war spending without return profit.

what Obama is doing now , is theorotically sounding as the Keynesian theory: Infrastructure spending during economic crisis and payback in economic uprise. its only been 1 month, so far he hasn't done anything wrong... he is just following an extremely sounding theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Just so you guys know now, the federal government passes spending bills to cover its yearly expenses. Since the budget is about 2.5 trillion or so you can freely freak out about the remaining 2.1 TRILLION IN SPENDING LOLCHANGE at this time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

You arent getting it. Youre stuck in this game of but Bush would have! but McCain would have!" It doesnt excuse it AT ALL.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Obama passing the largest spending bill in history, eclipsing Bush's spending, burying us deeper into debt fast than Bush did, is evidence of Obama running on a platform of change?

It's too early to tell. If it is fairly successful then yes, if not then no.

How can you claim a platform of change is based on level of success on a spending bill, especially one that you claim would have been proposed by the opposition had they been elected?

To be honest I really can't. I'm so overwhelmed about this situation all I can hope for is the best. I would like to see a clear and concise plan from anyone that would guarantee we come out of this in great shape in little time but so far all I've seen is complaining, no solutions except for what he's proposed. I pray that he's up to the task. Right now it's way to early to tell.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hello? Do you have a reading problem? "I am waiting for the pork REPORT" meaning I still haven't seen ACTUAL details of these THOUSANDS of earmarks tossed into this bill. Yes, some of the real spending was left over - I understand that but there are also issues with that - especially in light of the porkulus that was just passed.

so you have no idea what is in the bill, yet you are already calling it a pork? ...

you just proved yourself a trolling lier.

lol, the article points out that there is pork. Do you not read anything? Sheesh.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hello? Do you have a reading problem? "I am waiting for the pork REPORT" meaning I still haven't seen ACTUAL details of these THOUSANDS of earmarks tossed into this bill. Yes, some of the real spending was left over - I understand that but there are also issues with that - especially in light of the porkulus that was just passed.

so you have no idea what is in the bill, yet you are already calling it a pork? ...

you just proved yourself a trolling lier.

lol, the article points out that there is pork. Do you not read anything? Sheesh.

If there's pork then shame on those that included it. Now's definitely not the time to add little (or large) pet projects when our economy is in such dire straits. Even if it's just a small percentage it's still to much.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Yeah, this is the bill the Dems shelved until after the election because Bush said he would veto it.

And that changes what? Oh that's right... nothing.


I can't wait for the pork report on this one. It'll likely be a healthy chunck of it from the way it reads now and you know there is likely more yet to uncover.

From your own article, stupid. Do you even read what you post? Or do you just start ranting as soon as you read the headline?

"House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year ... There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion."

0.9% in earmarks is worth cranking up the outrage, eh Cad?

:roll: Can you not read?
I am waiting for the pork REPORT - not just some half-assed total they use as a base figure.
And yes, with the porkulus and this - we are talking about REAL money and REAL waste. Waste doesn't bother you..... now that a D is in charge? Hmm...

Right, I understand completely. You're blowing things out of proportion and grandstanding in lieu of any facts whatsoever.

"Democrats pork it up to the tune of 410 BILLION"

Talk about massive hyperbole right smack in your thread title.

:roll:

So? I don't give two shits if you don't like the summary. So does waste bother you or not?

Of course it does, but let's keep it in perspective. Less than 1% is not bad. In fact, it's probably an improvement over previous years. Go check out this thread if you doubt me:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2280440&enterthread=y

Interesting to note though, that you're perfectly OK with blatant trolling and lying in your thread titles/summaries though. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hello? Do you have a reading problem? "I am waiting for the pork REPORT" meaning I still haven't seen ACTUAL details of these THOUSANDS of earmarks tossed into this bill. Yes, some of the real spending was left over - I understand that but there are also issues with that - especially in light of the porkulus that was just passed.

so you have no idea what is in the bill, yet you are already calling it a pork? ...

you just proved yourself a trolling lier.

lol, the article points out that there is pork. Do you not read anything? Sheesh.

I don't see it, mind point it out for me? or have you even read it?

Looks like infrastructure spending to me...

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.

 

[OCGuy]

They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

What sort of news coverage are you expecting the normal governmental spending bills that pass every year to get?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

What sort of news coverage are you expecting the normal governmental spending bills that pass every year to get?

The public is tuned in to government spending right now, so this isnt like every other year where the pork and pet-projects will go unnoticed. I hope.

 

[SAWYER]

You underestimate the stupidity of the average voter

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

What sort of news coverage are you expecting the normal governmental spending bills that pass every year to get?

The public is tuned in to government spending right now, so this isnt like every other year where the pork and pet-projects will go unnoticed. I hope.

I'm having trouble mustering outrage over less than 1% earmarks. (oh, and just so you know earmarks are not always pork, they frequently are extremely useful). Furthermore you're betting on someone being outraged by a spending bill in February 2009 being a meaningful factor on their vote in November of 2010? Pretty unlikely.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

already blaming future GOP loses on the media.

LOL "Party of Personal Responsbility!!! "

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are so f*cked in 2010 if this gets the right news coverage.

What sort of news coverage are you expecting the normal governmental spending bills that pass every year to get?

The public is tuned in to government spending right now, so this isnt like every other year where the pork and pet-projects will go unnoticed. I hope.

I'm having trouble mustering outrage over less than 1% earmarks. (oh, and just so you know earmarks are not always pork, they frequently are extremely useful). Furthermore you're betting on someone being outraged by a spending bill in February 2009 being a meaningful factor on their vote in November of 2010? Pretty unlikely.

Less than 1% here, $1trillion there, no outrage?

We are like the frog in the pot, sitting happy as the water slowly heats up.....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Less than 1% here, $1trillion there, no outrage?

We are like the frog in the pot, sitting happy as the water slowly heats up.....

I like how from one half of your "a little here, a little there..." you increased the amount of dollars spent by 25,000%

If every bill that the government passed had less than 1% waste in it I would be a very, very happy man. I'm not saying that this bill is that way as I haven't read much about it, and of course that assumes all earmarks are waste, which certainly isn't true. I'll save my outrage for something more substantial though.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

You arent getting it. Youre stuck in this game of but Bush would have! but McCain would have!" It doesnt excuse it AT ALL.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Obama passing the largest spending bill in history, eclipsing Bush's spending, burying us deeper into debt fast than Bush did, is evidence of Obama running on a platform of change?

It's too early to tell. If it is fairly successful then yes, if not then no.

How can you claim a platform of change is based on level of success on a spending bill, especially one that you claim would have been proposed by the opposition had they been elected?

To be honest I really can't. I'm so overwhelmed about this situation all I can hope for is the best. I would like to see a clear and concise plan from anyone that would guarantee we come out of this in great shape in little time but so far all I've seen is complaining, no solutions except for what he's proposed. I pray that he's up to the task. Right now it's way to early to tell.

I understand. I am doing my part by pumping every free penny I have into the stock market (It *will* go up sometime dammit!!!), but it is interesting to see the downturn happen around.

I think when we first learned of the bailouts, we kind of thought it was for infrastructure similar to the public works projects in the 30's. Now that we are finding out that the bailouts aren't for it, I think both sides are just in shock. I might be well off the mark, but man did I get a strange taste in my mouth when I found out how little of the bills are for actual construction (job) projects.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Less than 1% here, $1trillion there, no outrage?

We are like the frog in the pot, sitting happy as the water slowly heats up.....

I like how from one half of your "a little here, a little there..." you increased the amount of dollars spent by 25,000%

If every bill that the government passed had less than 1% waste in it I would be a very, very happy man. I'm not saying that this bill is that way as I haven't read much about it, and of course that assumes all earmarks are waste, which certainly isn't true. I'll save my outrage for something more substantial though.

Math is hard, right OCGuy? Maybe you should pay closer attention. Oh, and get a calculator.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, it's around 1100 pages long...good luck.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go...ocid=f:h1105ih.txt.pdf

 

[LTC8K6]

It'll be another bill that is largely unread by the President and Congress when it goes through, like the stimulus bill.

 

[Infohawk]

Personally, I'm not a fan of any of the spending except for the infracture spending. But LOL at Cad for criticizing spending when he has been such a huge supporter of GWB wars.

not spending > Stimulus spending > unecessary war spending

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
not spending > Stimulus spending > unecessary war spending

QFT

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Personally, I'm not a fan of any of the spending except for the infracture spending. But LOL at Cad for criticizing spending when he has been such a huge supporter of GWB wars.

not spending > Stimulus spending > unecessary war spending

lol at infosquawk for yet again purposely twisting reality to suit his agenda...