PorkBusters

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?

Ah, here's where you think you've got me, but you're wrong. I would take a 15 to 20% across the board cut and smile all day long. If you think I'm pro entitlement/pro-welfare, you're wrong. I understand people need help, but I also think peeople should help themselves first.


So your cut is nothing like I would like to see. I want something in the magnitude to MEAN something to overall spending and deficit.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Cut the fat

It seems this list was an effort put together after the costs of Katrina were put out there for public information. I know some sites and people have focused on Government pork for years but not quite on this level and from the looks of it - not with this much support.

Check out the list 'o pork and see if your state is on the list. If so - contact your Goverment representatives and tell them to cut the pork. If you know of Federal pork in your state that is not listed - send these guys the information and they'll add it to the list.


IMO, not only will this effort help with the current disaster spending issue, but will also help trim some of that wildly overgrown Federal budget we have. I see we have alot of talk from people here about "fiscal" responsibility - lets see if those same people step up to the plate when it might be their state's pork being tagged.

What kind of diversion tactic is this? The socalled consservatives controll the executive and both houses of the legislature. All you are doing is attempting to obscure that fact.

Bush can't spell "veto", much less use it in a sentence. Too bad, you can't even recognize the problem.

So I have your support on this?
"I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?"

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?

Ah, here's where you think you've got me, but you're wrong. I would take a 15 to 20% across the board cut and smile all day long. If you think I'm pro entitlement/pro-welfare, you're wrong. I understand people need help, but I also think peeople should help themselves first.


So your cut is nothing like I would like to see. I want something in the magnitude to MEAN something to overall spending and deficit.

Oh, I agree there is much more to be done but the immediate 10% would more take care of the obvious spending that is needed and going to be spent on rebuilding the Gulf. Once that is taken care of - the other parts need slashed upon close scrutiny and debate. I think that a drastic 20-30% cut across the board would hurt things that don't necessarily need to be cut and allow some things to continue despite their worthless nature.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So I have your support on this?
"I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?"

Across the board, bar NONE, policies are very short sighted. Should we reduce rescue missions for injured soldiers by 10%? I mean, we can save 90% of the soldiers, but lets just not spend that extra 10% to save the rest of their lives.

Cutting 10% from the military and let the military choose where to cut more and where to cut less would be a lot more effective. But no, you want each and every line cut by 10%.

 

[Dman877]

Don't forget the 400 billion in pork we fork over to the defense industry every year. That could easily be cut in half or reduced even further.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So I have your support on this?
"I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?"

Across the board, bar NONE, policies are very short sighted. Should we reduce rescue missions for injured soldiers by 10%? I mean, we can save 90% of the soldiers, but lets just not spend that extra 10% to save the rest of their lives.

Cutting 10% from the military and let the military choose where to cut more and where to cut less would be a lot more effective. But no, you want each and every line cut by 10%.

The Federal budget doesn't get down to that sort of detail however. So while I agree that across the board cuts can have damaging effects(as noted to Engineer) - in this case I think that any ill effects will be quite small.

So now that you understand that the budget doesn't deal in the minutia - you on board? If not - do you have a plan?

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Cut the fat

It seems this list was an effort put together after the costs of Katrina were put out there for public information. I know some sites and people have focused on Government pork for years but not quite on this level and from the looks of it - not with this much support.

Check out the list 'o pork and see if your state is on the list. If so - contact your Goverment representatives and tell them to cut the pork. If you know of Federal pork in your state that is not listed - send these guys the information and they'll add it to the list.


IMO, not only will this effort help with the current disaster spending issue, but will also help trim some of that wildly overgrown Federal budget we have. I see we have alot of talk from people here about "fiscal" responsibility - lets see if those same people step up to the plate when it might be their state's pork being tagged.

What kind of diversion tactic is this? The socalled consservatives controll the executive and both houses of the legislature. All you are doing is attempting to obscure that fact.

Bush can't spell "veto", much less use it in a sentence. Too bad, you can't even recognize the problem.

So I have your support on this?
"I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?"

No. You propose a simplistic solution to a massively complex problem. Send the president back to grade school and let him learn a few english words. Words like veto an accountablity. He could take a course in home economics and learn the joys of balancing the checkbook.

You seem shocked that after all the celebrations after the last series of elections, that it could come to this. Another midterm election is coming up and hopefully, this will be a turning point.

Do you remember when there was a president that would actually excercise veto power? I do, you do not.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So now that you understand that the budget doesn't deal in the minutia - you on board? If not - do you have a plan?

But it does often deal in the minutia. From your pork link: Town of Neola Iowa, 823 people, to get $17,000 for a thermal imaging camera. Or the ever famous $25,000 grant for mariachi band instruction for students in Clark County Nevada who don't like chorus or regular band. Fine, fine details and minutia are everywhere.

If your 10% cut is general, then it can very well be doable. If it includes the minutia, I will fight it tooth and nail. Some programs are honestly beneficial and underfunded. Those should not get the 10% cut. Some programs are not beneficial and/or are overfunded - those should get more than a 10% cut.


I am in full favor of a budget that stabolizes the economy. When things are going well (such as the 3-4% growth we've been having), there should be less spending and more taxes. This will bring in a surplus in the times when the economy can handle it. Then when things turn sour, there should be spending increases (especially in areas where the economy is worst) and tax cuts (especially for those hardest hit). The surplus we had from the last good period will cover this deficit. An across the board 10% cut just doesn't have any leeway for this flexibility that I would love to see.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Cut the fat

It seems this list was an effort put together after the costs of Katrina were put out there for public information. I know some sites and people have focused on Government pork for years but not quite on this level and from the looks of it - not with this much support.

Check out the list 'o pork and see if your state is on the list. If so - contact your Goverment representatives and tell them to cut the pork. If you know of Federal pork in your state that is not listed - send these guys the information and they'll add it to the list.


IMO, not only will this effort help with the current disaster spending issue, but will also help trim some of that wildly overgrown Federal budget we have. I see we have alot of talk from people here about "fiscal" responsibility - lets see if those same people step up to the plate when it might be their state's pork being tagged.

What kind of diversion tactic is this? The socalled consservatives controll the executive and both houses of the legislature. All you are doing is attempting to obscure that fact.

Bush can't spell "veto", much less use it in a sentence. Too bad, you can't even recognize the problem.

So I have your support on this?
"I would support an immediate 10% across the board cut to ALL expenditures(bar NONE) - do you?"

No. You propose a simplistic solution to a massively complex problem. Send the president back to grade school and let him learn a few english words. Words like veto an accountablity. He could take a course in home economics and learn the joys of balancing the checkbook.

You seem shocked that after all the celebrations after the last series of elections, that it could come to this. Another midterm election is coming up and hopefully, this will be a turning point.

Do you remember when there was a president that would actually excercise veto power? I do, you do not.

Your solution is a "veto"? :roll: Wow. Way to think outside the box. :roll:

 

[Engineer]

Correction: I'll correct myself that I would take a 10% across the board "in general" as dullard suggested. I mean 10% (or more) off the overall federal budget, not necessarily 10% (or more) off each program or division. Some division would receive larger cuts to offset those with smaller or no cuts. 10% or more across the board to me meant "overall".

Sorry for any confusion. Government is a bloated pork spending machine. Someday, somone will have to pay the tab!

P.S. It would be nice to see the "conservative" Bush use the Veto on "spending" once and awhile. Reagan used it 22 times...Bush = zero.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So now that you understand that the budget doesn't deal in the minutia - you on board? If not - do you have a plan?

But it does often deal in the minutia. From your pork link: Town of Neola Iowa, 823 people, to get $17,000 for a thermal imaging camera. Or the ever famous $25,000 grant for mariachi band instruction for students in Clark County Nevada who don't like chorus or regular band. Fine, fine details and minutia are everywhere.

If your 10% cut is general, then it can very well be doable. If it includes the minutia, I will fight it tooth and nail. Some programs are honestly beneficial and underfunded. Those should not get the 10% cut. Some programs are not beneficial and/or are overfunded - those should get more than a 10% cut.


I am in full favor of a budget that stabolizes the economy. When things are going well (such as the 3-4% growth we've been having), there should be less spending and more taxes. This will bring in a surplus in the times when the economy can handle it. Then when things turn sour, there should be spending increases (especially in areas where the economy is worst) and tax cuts (especially for those hardest hit). The surplus we had from the last good period will cover this deficit. An across the board 10% cut just doesn't have any leeway for this flexibility that I would love to see.

No area of the budget sparred - period. I also don't think you understand what I'm saying. The 10% is to free up money for the rebuild - THEN - everything will be gone through, scrutinized, and debated. The minutia you point out is added on pork -which is fine and should be cut because it is blatant pork. ALL the blatant pork should be 100% cut. The 10% is for the rest of the budget. The pentagon gets 10% less, etc. The Federal budget doesn't deal with the minutia of "rescue missions" so your little emotional attempt doesn't fly.

Taxes don't need to be raised when there is spending to be cut. If spending cuts are made to rid the budget of ALL pork and wasteful spending and we still don't have the tax revenue to cover the budget - I would support raising taxes -but you and I both know that isn't and wouldn't be the case.




What I find interesting is how many people bitch and moan about deficit spending and such but aren't willing to make the spending cuts necessary to bring things in line. Is there anyone here who thinks that a 2.6 Trillion Federal budget doesn't spend enough?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Correction: I'll correct myself that I would take a 10% across the board "in general" as dullard suggested. I mean 10% (or more) off the overall federal budget, not necessarily 10% (or more) off each program or division. Some division would receive larger cuts to offset those with smaller or no cuts. 10% or more across the board to me meant "overall".

Sorry for any confusion. Government is a bloated pork spending machine. Someday, somone will have to pay the tab!

P.S. It would be nice to see the "conservative" Bush use the Veto on "spending" once and awhile. Reagan used it 22 times...Bush = zero.

Who gets to decide which parts can or can't be touched with the immediate 10% cut to rebuild the gulf?

You see, that is the problem - no one wants their area cut so they'll make a different part take a bigger cut.

 

[FuzzyBee]

How many times is the site going to list the infamous AK bridge?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
...

I do understand what you are saying. You just don't understand the facts. The government often DOES deal in small details when it comes to spending. I oppose blind cuts to all spending. You orginally said 10% BAR NONE. Now you come in and say: (1)except the rebuild and (2) except for pork (which gets more than 10%). How many more exceptions to this BAR NONE rule will you have?

I also disagree with the rebuild effort. I'd much perfer a relocate effort for most of the damaged area. Far cheaper and long term it will be far superior since we'll have more hurricanes.

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Who gets to decide which parts can or can't be touched with the immediate 10% cut to rebuild the gulf?

You see, that is the problem - no one wants their area cut so they'll make a different part take a bigger cut.

The heads of each program should decide at this point. Let each program get a 10% cut, not each item within each program. Later on, when congress has time, they can nit-pick the differences.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Engineer
Correction: I'll correct myself that I would take a 10% across the board "in general" as dullard suggested. I mean 10% (or more) off the overall federal budget, not necessarily 10% (or more) off each program or division. Some division would receive larger cuts to offset those with smaller or no cuts. 10% or more across the board to me meant "overall".

Sorry for any confusion. Government is a bloated pork spending machine. Someday, somone will have to pay the tab!

P.S. It would be nice to see the "conservative" Bush use the Veto on "spending" once and awhile. Reagan used it 22 times...Bush = zero.

Who gets to decide which parts can or can't be touched with the immediate 10% cut to rebuild the gulf?

You see, that is the problem - no one wants their area cut so they'll make a different part take a bigger cut.

I don't care. Just cut 10% or more off the federal budget and balance the damn thing. There's more than enough "pork" to easily do it. I'm just sick of the borrowing of nearly 1/2 trillion dollars per year, knowing that it's going to be paid back at some point with interest (plus interest is paid yearly on it anyway). Some programs such as military cannot be cut at this time, however many others (projects) could be completely cut out. Let the people in DC work it out. They have X amount of dollars. Cut what is necessary from wherever to make it balance. PERIOD.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

No. You propose a simplistic solution to a massively complex problem. Send the president back to grade school and let him learn a few english words. Words like veto an accountablity. He could take a course in home economics and learn the joys of balancing the checkbook.

You seem shocked that after all the celebrations after the last series of elections, that it could come to this. Another midterm election is coming up and hopefully, this will be a turning point.

Do you remember when there was a president that would actually excercise veto power? I do, you do not.

Veto a bipartisan nearly unanimous transportation bill with a vetoproof 2/3 majority?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
Veto a bipartisan nearly unanimous transportation bill with a vetoproof 2/3 majority?

Yep. That'll send a message that the president is finally serious. Even if it gets overrulled, at least the message has finally been made. So far, a blind rat with only its tail left who can press a yes button on a computer would have done exactly the same as Pres. Bush in his half decade in office. It is time to start doing something other than signing every bill that comes to his desk.

It might not do much now, but it'll let them know next time that they don't have a vetoproof majority that Mr. Bush WILL do something. That'll make people think twice on the next bill.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Anyone find it strange that considering Republicans are in power (and have been for a while) that there is still this much pork out there? I mean I thought they were supposed to be Fiscal conservatives.

Humm...Connecticut has 14,450,000 total pork (according to this website) and two Democratic senators, and North Carolina has two Republican senators and: 2,832,331,647 in total pork (according to this website). Interesting...

There arent many fiscal conservatives left in congress on either aisle.

There hasn't been for about 100 years now. This is news?

Fiscal conservatism was on its way out when WW1 rolled around, and then completely left the building during FDR's administration.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
...

I do understand what you are saying. You just don't understand the facts. The government often DOES deal in small details when it comes to spending. I oppose blind cuts to all spending. You orginally said 10% BAR NONE. Now you come in and say: (1)except the rebuild and (2) except for pork (which gets more than 10%). How many more exceptions to this BAR NONE rule will you have?

I also disagree with the rebuild effort. I'd much perfer a relocate effort for most of the damaged area. Far cheaper and long term it will be far superior since we'll have more hurricanes.

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Who gets to decide which parts can or can't be touched with the immediate 10% cut to rebuild the gulf?

You see, that is the problem - no one wants their area cut so they'll make a different part take a bigger cut.

The heads of each program should decide at this point. Let each program get a 10% cut, not each item within each program. Later on, when congress has time, they can nit-pick the differences.

You still don't seem to be reading what I'm posting. There were NO execptions. The motive for this was to pay for the immediate spending that will be necessary for the Gulf rebuild. ALL pork is gone - not "exempted" :roll:

Exactly - I did not say every spending item within every program/dept budget. I stated the FEDERAL budget -which doesn't deal in the minutia of every program or department. Yes, there are some details but it sure doesn't specify "rescue missions" money.
10% from what's on here - the FEDERAL BUDGET

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice diversion- picking at hangnails, ignoring the spurting arterial blood from the military in general, WOI, NMD, pharma pork, energy giant taxcuts, taxcuts for anybody who really didn't need a taxcut, lack of IRS enforcement on the wealthiest taxpayers, and subsidies for farmers who don't need subsidies...

One third of all non-SS federal expenditures are done on borrowed money. figure that into the nitpicking at pork, see what you can come up with...

You're counting the change in the drawer while bandits are emptying out the safe in the back...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
Veto a bipartisan nearly unanimous transportation bill with a vetoproof 2/3 majority?

Yep. That'll send a message that the president is finally serious. Even if it gets overrulled, at least the message has finally been made. So far, a blind rat with only its tail left who can press a yes button on a computer would have done exactly the same as Pres. Bush in his half decade in office. It is time to start doing something other than signing every bill that comes to his desk.

It might not do much now, but it'll let them know next time that they don't have a vetoproof majority that Mr. Bush WILL do something. That'll make people think twice on the next bill.

And the Dems and radical left would start sliming him for dividing the country.

Let's start by cutting pork and entitlement spending, then 20+% off across the board.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
Veto a bipartisan nearly unanimous transportation bill with a vetoproof 2/3 majority?

Yep. That'll send a message that the president is finally serious. Even if it gets overrulled, at least the message has finally been made. So far, a blind rat with only its tail left who can press a yes button on a computer would have done exactly the same as Pres. Bush in his half decade in office. It is time to start doing something other than signing every bill that comes to his desk.

It might not do much now, but it'll let them know next time that they don't have a vetoproof majority that Mr. Bush WILL do something. That'll make people think twice on the next bill.

And the Dems and radical left would start sliming him for dividing the country.

Let's start by cutting pork and entitlement spending, then 20+% off across the board.

Nobody has to slam Bush. He's doing a fine job polarizing the country all on his own.

Just what do you mean by entitlements? SS? Medicare? While I don't agree with them, just exactly how are you going "cut" them when there is currently a surplus in revenues for them? I guess you could just make it a general tax and then throw them out....but the people in DC that did that would be thrown out just as quick. You know that too.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
How many times is the site going to list the infamous AK bridge?

As many times as necessary to shame that douchebag into giving that money back.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice diversion- picking at hangnails,

:roll: "hangnails" :laugh: Billions = hangnails :laugh:

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Malfeas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Anyone find it strange that considering Republicans are in power (and have been for a while) that there is still this much pork out there? I mean I thought they were supposed to be Fiscal conservatives.

Humm...Connecticut has 14,450,000 total pork (according to this website) and two Democratic senators, and North Carolina has two Republican senators and: 2,832,331,647 in total pork (according to this website). Interesting...

There arent many fiscal conservatives left in congress on either aisle.

I don't believe it, I actually agree with GENX87 on two posts!!!!!!!!!!! GENX87 is correct when he points out that NEITHER poltical party is fiscally conservative anymore. IMO they are both corrupt with their votes going to the highest bidder.