Another spending bill already???

[palehorse]

Obama has already signed off on more spending, during his very first month as President, than the total spending on the entire Iraq War.

That's some scary shit...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Obama has already signed off on more spending, during his very first month as President, than the total spending on the entire Iraq War.

That's some scary shit...

So long as you keep all the ancillary costs of the Iraq war off the balance sheet. (veterans health care anyone?) I have no idea why you would do this though.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Befor this Bill ever passes it will grow by at least another 200 billion. At the least. That won't be enough. LOL

 

[CADsortaGUY]

$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...


8,570 <disclosed earmarks Hmm... I wonder how many hidden earmarks are in there?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...

Hey, it isnt pork! LA really needs that $200,000 tattoo removal machine.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...


8,570 <<disclosed earmarks Hmm... I wonder how many hidden earmarks are in there?

So you started out talking about the $410B spending bill, but are now referring to the $787B stimulus bill? Talk about moving the goalposts. Geeze, Cad, I mean come on.

So we're all on the same page, there's less than 1% pork in the spending bill and less than 1% pork in the stimulus bill. Do the math: $7.7B in earmarks, divided by $787B in the stimulus package = .97%.

And your own linked article mentioned that overall earmarks have gone DOWN from FY2008 to FY2009. Not by much, but still I'll take a downward trend as a good sign.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah saw this this morning. GWB's massive spending is quickly falling out of sight and being eclipsed. 2-4 years from now we will WISH for his spending.

Do you believe Bush or if elected McCain wouldn't be spending this kind of money now?

Superman was polled yesterday at the Justice League Headquarters. He said he would propose more bailouts.

Emperor Palpatine recommended we shoot it with lasers instead of bailing out.

Jesus Christ did not return our phone calls.


Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical situations... "What Would McCain Do?" sort of thing.

The difference is McCain's real, the other three aren't.

There are many differences comparing McCain to Obama and yet you hint that they would both have the same solution. Has McCain been officially polled? Until that happens, it remains an act of faith and belief that McCain would promote bailouts or not.

McCain voted against the porkulus so isn't that "officially polled"?

Of course he did. And if the Repubs were in office he would vote for it. Open your eyes mate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...


8,570 <<<<disclosed earmarks Hmm... I wonder how many hidden earmarks are in there?

So you started out talking about the $410B spending bill, but are now referring to the $787B stimulus bill? Talk about moving the goalposts. Geeze, Cad, I mean come on.

So we're all on the same page, there's less than 1% pork in the spending bill and less than 1% pork in the stimulus bill. Do the math: $7.7B in earmarks, divided by $787B in the stimulus package = .97%.

And your own linked article mentioned that overall earmarks have gone DOWN from FY2008 to FY2009. Not by much, but still I'll take a downward trend as a good sign.

I guess you'd have to pay attention to know that the link I posted is about the 2009 spending bill instead of the porkulus that you libs call "stimulus" These are 2 very different things. You do remember that the libs were crowing about how the supposed "stimulus" was "earmark free" right? Well, a week later they pass a pork bill full of earmarks.

So in case you missed it - there was no goal post moving - you are just confused.

Click at your own risk

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah saw this this morning. GWB's massive spending is quickly falling out of sight and being eclipsed. 2-4 years from now we will WISH for his spending.

Do you believe Bush or if elected McCain wouldn't be spending this kind of money now?

Superman was polled yesterday at the Justice League Headquarters. He said he would propose more bailouts.

Emperor Palpatine recommended we shoot it with lasers instead of bailing out.

Jesus Christ did not return our phone calls.


Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical situations... "What Would McCain Do?" sort of thing.

The difference is McCain's real, the other three aren't.

There are many differences comparing McCain to Obama and yet you hint that they would both have the same solution. Has McCain been officially polled? Until that happens, it remains an act of faith and belief that McCain would promote bailouts or not.

McCain voted against the porkulus so isn't that "officially polled"?

Of course he did. And if the Repubs were in office he would vote for it. Open your eyes mate.

:roll: You know this how?

I wasn't the one claiming to know if he would or wouldn't - I simply responded to the notion that McCain hadn't been "polled". He very much was polled - he cast his vote against it.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah saw this this morning. GWB's massive spending is quickly falling out of sight and being eclipsed. 2-4 years from now we will WISH for his spending.

Do you believe Bush or if elected McCain wouldn't be spending this kind of money now?

Superman was polled yesterday at the Justice League Headquarters. He said he would propose more bailouts.

Emperor Palpatine recommended we shoot it with lasers instead of bailing out.

Jesus Christ did not return our phone calls.


Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical situations... "What Would McCain Do?" sort of thing.

The difference is McCain's real, the other three aren't.

There are many differences comparing McCain to Obama and yet you hint that they would both have the same solution. Has McCain been officially polled? Until that happens, it remains an act of faith and belief that McCain would promote bailouts or not.

McCain voted against the porkulus so isn't that "officially polled"?

Of course he did. And if the Repubs were in office he would vote for it. Open your eyes mate.

:roll: You know this how?

I wasn't the one claiming to know if he would or wouldn't - I simply responded to the notion that McCain hadn't been "polled". He very much was polled - he cast his vote against it.

I'm going to go with common sense on how i know this. That's my final answer!
*YEAH I WIN!!*

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah saw this this morning. GWB's massive spending is quickly falling out of sight and being eclipsed. 2-4 years from now we will WISH for his spending.

Do you believe Bush or if elected McCain wouldn't be spending this kind of money now?

Superman was polled yesterday at the Justice League Headquarters. He said he would propose more bailouts.

Emperor Palpatine recommended we shoot it with lasers instead of bailing out.

Jesus Christ did not return our phone calls.


Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical situations... "What Would McCain Do?" sort of thing.

The difference is McCain's real, the other three aren't.

I thought you *hated* hypothetical questions? I was cybergagged every time I tried to pull this...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...


8,570 <<<disclosed earmarks Hmm... I wonder how many hidden earmarks are in there?

So you started out talking about the $410B spending bill, but are now referring to the $787B stimulus bill? Talk about moving the goalposts. Geeze, Cad, I mean come on.

So we're all on the same page, there's less than 1% pork in the spending bill and less than 1% pork in the stimulus bill. Do the math: $7.7B in earmarks, divided by $787B in the stimulus package = .97%.

And your own linked article mentioned that overall earmarks have gone DOWN from FY2008 to FY2009. Not by much, but still I'll take a downward trend as a good sign.

**snicker @ CAD**

FY 2005 earmarks exceeded 13,000 in number for total funding in excess of $28 billion.

So he is whining about a near 75% reduction and promoting a secret conspiracy despite new disclosure requirements as described here.

He also thinks Bobby did one heckuva job last night

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
$7.7 Billion In Earmarks In 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill


I guess there was more pork than the original half-assed article stated... go figure...


8,570 <<<<disclosed earmarks Hmm... I wonder how many hidden earmarks are in there?

So you started out talking about the $410B spending bill, but are now referring to the $787B stimulus bill? Talk about moving the goalposts. Geeze, Cad, I mean come on.

So we're all on the same page, there's less than 1% pork in the spending bill and less than 1% pork in the stimulus bill. Do the math: $7.7B in earmarks, divided by $787B in the stimulus package = .97%.

And your own linked article mentioned that overall earmarks have gone DOWN from FY2008 to FY2009. Not by much, but still I'll take a downward trend as a good sign.

**snicker @ CAD**

FY 2005 earmarks exceeded 13,000 in number for total funding in excess of $28 billion.

So he is whining about a near 75% reduction and promoting a secret conspiracy despite new disclosure requirements as described here.

He also thinks Bobby did one heckuva job last night

Eh? You really think I thought pork and earmarks were fine back then?
Also where did I post anything about Jindal's rebuttal?

Oh wait...you're just trolling - figures.

 

[palehorse]

Quick questions for those who are defending the earmarks: Has their total somehow dropped below some magic threshold of "acceptable amount"? Why are there still any earmarks in any legislation!?

IMO, we should no longer allow lawmakers to inject any earmarks into the legislative process. none. nada. zip. zero. nil. We should keep bitching loudly -- and voting accordingly -- until the entire practice of earmarks has been eradicated.

The only "acceptable" total is zero. Period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Quick questions for those who are defending the earmarks: Has their total somehow dropped below some magic threshold of "acceptable amount"? Why are there still any earmarks in any legislation!?

IMO, we should no longer allow lawmakers to inject any earmarks into the legislative process. none. nada. zip. zero. nil. We should keep bitching loudly -- and voting accordingly -- until the entire practice of earmarks has been eradicated.

The only "acceptable" total is zero. Period.

Why on earth would you say that?

Not all earmarks are pork, and there are plenty of ways to put pork in a bill without earmarks.

What you are basically calling for is for Congress to no longer be able to specifically direct how funds are spent, but instead just issue large grants of funding to federal agencies. (because that's what earmarks do, direct spending). That would be a MASSIVE surrender of power on the legislature's part, and as I've always said a weaker legislature is the LAST thing we need at this point.