PorkBusters

[Jhhnn]

Nah, shades of grey, what's disgusting is that the federal budget is ~$2.4T, so if your efforts cut ~$24B in pork, which I doubt, that would amount to 1% of the total budget...

You have no idea of the enormity of the looting currently taking place under Repub leadership. We'll end up with the smaller govt they promised, someday, for sure, simply because we won't be able to afford to pay the interest on the theft they've perpetrated and have it any other way at the same time... They're charlatans of the highest order.

Go to war, and cut taxes, borrow the money.

Pork out big pharma under the guise of a senior drug benefit, cut taxes, borrow more money.

Attempt to "reform" SS, cut taxes, just borrow more money...

Lay out a plan to spend trillions on pointless security, cut taxes, borrow more money...

Lay out a so-called "energy policy bill" that cuts taxes for the biggest money-makers in America, energy companies, borrow more money...

Funny how a very predictable occurrence, like a hurricane or two, can upset an applecart that's already teetering on the brink...

The answer is obvious, of course- cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, then borrow more money... then whine about spending on social programs, as if that's the basis for our current situation... oh, yeh, and cut the "pork" spending on roads, schools and other infrastructure, as if there's enough of that to actually make up the difference...

We need to fundamentally alter the way we look at govt and how to pay for it, for sure. OTOH, those currently in power view govt the same way a flock of vampire bats views the only cow in the pasture- as yummy... they intend to suck it dry, move on...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 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.

Medicaid Grants: $246895 million projected in 2008.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nah, shades of grey, what's disgusting is that the federal budget is ~$2.4T, so if your efforts cut ~$24B in pork, which I doubt, that would amount to 1% of the total budget...

You have no idea of the enormity of the looting currently taking place under Repub leadership. We'll end up with the smaller govt they promised, someday, for sure, simply because we won't be able to afford to pay the interest on the theft they've perpetrated and have it any other way at the same time... They're charlatans of the highest order.

Go to war, and cut taxes, borrow the money.

Pork out big pharma under the guise of a senior drug benefit, cut taxes, borrow more money.

Attempt to "reform" SS, cut taxes, just borrow more money...

Lay out a plan to spend trillions on pointless security, cut taxes, borrow more money...

Lay out a so-called "energy policy bill" that cuts taxes for the biggest money-makers in America, energy companies, borrow more money...

Funny how a very predictable occurrence, like a hurricane or two, can upset an applecart that's already teetering on the brink...

The answer is obvious, of course- cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, then borrow more money... then whine about spending on social programs, as if that's the basis for our current situation... oh, yeh, and cut the "pork" spending on roads, schools and other infrastructure, as if there's enough of that to actually make up the difference...

We need to fundamentally alter the way we look at govt and how to pay for it, for sure. OTOH, those currently in power view govt the same way a flock of vampire bats views the only cow in the pasture- as yummy... they intend to suck it dry, move on...

Oh, I agree -which you'd realize if you actually read my post. There is WAY too much spending- no need for a 2+ trillion budget - and I am disgusted by it. But for you to suggest pork is just a hangnail is laughable absurd.

While you go on and on - on some spittle filled tirade against Republicans -the rest of us don't need to focus our hate in some partisan fashion - we want to get things fixed.

Cutting the obvious pork is just a start and might just send a message to our elected officials that we are sick and tired of them spending our money in inappropriate ways. But you go ahead and just b!tch and moan about Republicans- I see how well that's worked at fixing this problem so far :roll:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 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.

Neither party is fiscally conservative because no one wants fiscal responsibility. I've said this so many times, but it bears repeating - no thinking person should be surprised that in a country in which the average consumer is mired in debt paying off the new SUV, the huge house, and the maxed-out credit cards, that same debt-ridden consumer prefers a gov't spending now, worrying about it later. The problem with democracy is that voters are idiots.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
things fixed.

Cutting the obvious pork is just a start and might just send a message to our elected officials that we are sick and tired of them spending our money in inappropriate ways. But you go ahead and just b!tch and moan about Republicans- I see how well that's worked at fixing this problem so far :roll:

Maybe if enough people bitch at them, they'll straighten up the fvcking financial situation that they've gotten us into over the last 5 years, eh?

I doubt it. They're worried about giving more tax breaks right now than even an ounce of how to pay for any of it. Both parties are in the sh!tter in finances, but the GOP crew in power right now might just be the worst crew in history.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
things fixed.

Cutting the obvious pork is just a start and might just send a message to our elected officials that we are sick and tired of them spending our money in inappropriate ways. But you go ahead and just b!tch and moan about Republicans- I see how well that's worked at fixing this problem so far :roll:

Maybe if enough people bitch at them, they'll straighten up the fvcking financial situation that they've gotten us into over the last 5 years, eh?

I doubt it. They're worried about giving more tax breaks right now than even an ounce of how to pay for any of it. Both parties are in the sh!tter in finances, but the GOP crew in power right now might just be the worst crew in history.

You mean if enough people bitch at them, they'll straighten up the fvcking financial situation they allowed to continue since the "New Deal" - right?
I mean you seem to think that the US started 5 years ago with Bush. Why such a narrow view? Partisan? Agenda? Hmmmm.

The facts are that neither party has been particularly helpful to our fiscal situation and it's been that way for decades. I'm hoping this disaster will help shock people into doing something about the massive over-spending in out government. Start with the obvious pork, and then work their way through each and every program - scrapping anything that doesn't achive POSITIVE results and scrapping all spending that falls outside of strict boundaries the Constitution and other founding documents laid out for them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, shades of grey, while you seem to contend that the current leadership is spendthrift and foolish, and that we can get their attention by complaining about the splash from the trough and the crumbs from the table. I contend that they know exactly what they're doing, that they intend to bleed the govt dry, force fiscal collapse of the US treasury, cripple the federal govt. After that, we'll emerge into the bright sunshine of some rightwing utopia, you bet... our own American version of the third world, where the rich are very, very rich, and everybody else isn't just dirt poor, but actually in debt, as well... where our descendants will be locked in indebted servitude to pay the interest on the debts that have been made today, with both high regressive taxes and few or no services to go along with them...

So, have at it, complain all you want to your elected representatives- they might even reply. There's only one complaint that will do any good, however, and that's to vote out as many of the charlatans as possible in 2006...

And, yeh, I put it in partisan terms. At least the Democrats have the sense and the fortitude to put it in honest terms- that we can have all the govt we're willing to pay for, rather than in the song and dance of ffaux taxcut trickledown mumbo-jumbo that benefits only the wealthy.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, shades of grey, while you seem to contend that the current leadership is spendthrift and foolish, and that we can get their attention by complaining about the splash from the trough and the crumbs from the table. I contend that they know exactly what they're doing, that they intend to bleed the govt dry, force fiscal collapse of the US treasury, cripple the federal govt. After that, we'll emerge into the bright sunshine of some rightwing utopia, you bet... our own American version of the third world, where the rich are very, very rich, and everybody else isn't just dirt poor, but actually in debt, as well... where our descendants will be locked in indebted servitude to pay the interest on the debts that have been made today, with both high regressive taxes and few or no services to go along with them...

So, have at it, complain all you want to your elected representatives- they might even reply. There's only one complaint that will do any good, however, and that's to vote out as many of the charlatans as possible in 2006...

And, yeh, I put it in partisan terms. At least the Democrats have the sense and the fortitude to put it in honest terms- that we can have all the govt we're willing to pay for, rather than in the song and dance of ffaux taxcut trickledown mumbo-jumbo that benefits only the wealthy.

Wow, it's no wonder you have trouble reading and understanding my posts - you've bought into the kook apocalypse conspiracy. Well have fun in that world - I can't say we'll miss you here in reality.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Is this guy for real?

Western Colorado?s chunk of the $284 billion highway bill that Congress passed this year is necessary for the region?s development, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Wednesday.

?I don?t think there?s any pork in there,? Salazar said. ?Our roads are not in great shape.?

The economic development of the region is dependent on its roads, said Salazar, a member of the House Transportation Committee.

?I?m not willing to cut any of the projects,? said Salazar, also a member of the Democratic Blue Dog caucus, which opposes Congressional spending on credit and justification for pet projects.

I sure hope his attitude doesn't represent the other Blue Dog caucus members. But then again we're still waiting for BOTH sides to step up to the plate on this issue.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
ALL pork is gone - not "exempted" :roll:

You said absolutely everything gets a 10% cut. Now you say pork gets a 100% cut. Seems like you don't understand what you were saying. I agree that pork should get a 100% cut. But that, by definition, means that not everything gets a 10% cut.

I stated the FEDERAL budget -which doesn't deal in the minutia of every program or department.

But it does deal with the minutia of programs. There are clear rules, laws, regulations, etc on how each of those programs in your spreadsheet are to be spent. I don't see why you don't understand this. Yes, some programs are more flexible than others. And yes I gave a silly example. But you can't just ignore the facts.

How about a real example? I work for a small business that gets a significant amount of our revenue from government grants. You stated that you want everything cut by 10%. That would include the National Science Foundation. From your spreadsheet, 2006 has an estimated NSF funding of $5.4 billion. Now, there is also regulations not shown on your spreadsheet that $150 million of those $5.4 billion NSF funds are earmarked specifically for small businesses. Do you:
(a) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and that subpart of $150 million kept the same.
(b) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and that subpart cut to $135 million?
(c) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and let the NSF director choose to change the small business portion?

I just want you to define your plan more specifically. As it is, questions like that above are unanswered.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
ALL pork is gone - not "exempted" :roll:

You said absolutely everything gets a 10% cut. Now you say pork gets a 100% cut. Seems like you don't understand what you were saying. I agree that pork should get a 100% cut. But that, by definition, means that not everything gets a 10% cut.

I stated the FEDERAL budget -which doesn't deal in the minutia of every program or department.

But it does deal with the minutia of programs. There are clear rules, laws, regulations, etc on how each of those programs in your spreadsheet are to be spent. I don't see why you don't understand this. Yes, some programs are more flexible than others. And yes I gave a silly example. But you can't just ignore the facts.

How about a real example? I work for a small business that gets a significant amount of our revenue from government grants. You stated that you want everything cut by 10%. That would include the National Science Foundation. From your spreadsheet, 2006 has an estimated NSF funding of $5.4 billion. Now, there is also regulations not shown on your spreadsheet that $150 million of those $5.4 billion NSF funds are earmarked specifically for small businesses. Do you:
(a) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and that subpart of $150 million kept the same.
(b) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and that subpart cut to $135 million?
(c) want the $5.4 billion cut to $4.9 billion and let the NSF director choose to change the small business portion?

I just want you to define your plan more specifically. As it is, questions like that above are unanswered.

Are you for real? Do you not know how to read and pay attention? This thread is about cutting ALL PORK. On top of that I suggested that we need a 10% cut across the board to pay for the necessary rebuilding of the gulf.

No - I'm not going to get into the specifics of how you break it down because it's just a stupid game you are trying to play. Take each line in that sheet - take 10% off. That's how much they get. They can figure it out from there. But keep in mind - the 10% is just a start so if these programs/agencies want to stay alive after the second round will have to prove their worth - so it would make sense that they cut the fat during the 10% round - lest them but cut out in full later.

So while you play little semantics games - I'll continue to push for reform and action.



BTW:

Tom Coburn's amendment was sucessfully attached to an Ag bill.

The Coburn amendment requires that any limitation, directive, or earmarking be included in the bill's conference report. Previous Senate procedures allowed the Senate to automatically approve earmarks or special projects included in the House version of an appropriations bill.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
No - I'm not going to get into the specifics of how you break it down because it's just a stupid game you are trying to play. Take each line in that sheet - take 10% off. That's how much they get.

So while you play little semantics games - I'll continue to push for reform and action.

Good. Thank you for finally answering my question. I can accept and support a plan to take off 10% from each main program. Then let the program heads choose how to split up the cuts. That is a much more effective use of money than how your original posts made it sound - cutting 10% of absolutely everything bar none. I would have fought hard against your plan if you intended to cut every spending item by 10% bar none. But a general 10% cut to each program is quite doable.

Now you have a real plan. Without those little semantics, you had an undeveloped idea. An idea that would be impossible to implement without details.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
No - I'm not going to get into the specifics of how you break it down because it's just a stupid game you are trying to play. Take each line in that sheet - take 10% off. That's how much they get.

So while you play little semantics games - I'll continue to push for reform and action.

Good. Thank you for finally answering my question. I can accept and support a plan to take off 10% from each main program. Then let the program heads choose how to split up the cuts. That is a much more effective use of money than how your original posts made it sound - cutting 10% of absolutely everything bar none. I would have fought hard against your plan if you intended to cut every spending item by 10% bar none. But a general 10% cut to each program is quite doable.

Now you have a real plan. Without those little semantics, you had an undeveloped idea. An idea that would be impossible to implement without details.

That's what I've said all along - there is nothing "now" about it. You were the one trying to suggest or implying it was MORE than a general cut. I even provided a link to a spreadsheet to clarify what I'm talking about when I speak of the FEDEAL Budget.
The Fedeal Budget as we all know and see it doesn't deal in the minutia of each program so I don't know why you even thought it was a question.

Do you now understand the pork vs 10% cut situation?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
The Fedeal Budget as we all know and see it doesn't deal in the minutia of each program so I don't know why you even thought it was a question.

False, false, false, false, and false. That is why you have to clarify.

Do you now understand the pork vs 10% cut situation?

I always have understood it, and I agree with you. But your statement was simply factually contradictory. You should have stated 100% pork cut, 10% cut on each federal program, and let the program heads choose how to divide the cuts. That would be a lot more clear and accurate than "10% on everything bar none".

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
The Fedeal Budget as we all know and see it doesn't deal in the minutia of each program so I don't know why you even thought it was a question.

False, false, false, false, and false. That is why you have to clarify.

Do you now understand the pork vs 10% cut situation?

I always have understood it, and I agree with you. But your statement was simply factually contradictory. You should have stated 100% pork cut, 10% cut on each federal program, and let the program heads choose how to divide the cuts. That would be a lot more clear and accurate than "10% on everything bar none".

Nope, you're confused about the Federal Budget.
You also must not have read my posts correctly if you didn't understand that ALL pork was to be removed. I'm not sure how someone could have misunderstood that since the whole point of the thread is getting rid of the obvious pork.

Now back to the Pork discussion because this little game you want to play is rather silly.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Nope, you're confused about the Federal Budget.

How am I confused? I gave a concrete and specific example of how those ARE subdivided (NSF funds). And you just ignore the facts.

You also must not have read my posts correctly if you didn't understand that ALL pork was to be removed.

I did read your posts correctly and I did see that as your intention. And I agree it is a noble cause. However, your one statement contradicted what you said elsewhere. So I said you should clarify that one statement for those who do not and will not read this thread. When we write our representatives demanding this 10% cut, are we to ask them to read this thread hoping that they realize it was also 100% cut to pork? If we did that, would you really expect them to actually read this thread?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Nope, you're confused about the Federal Budget.

How am I confused? I gave a concrete and specific example of how those ARE subdivided (NSF funds). And you just ignore the facts.

You also must not have read my posts correctly if you didn't understand that ALL pork was to be removed.

I did read your posts correctly and I did see that as your intention. And I agree it is a noble cause. However, your one statement contradicted what you said elsewhere. So I said you should clarify that one statement for those who do not and will not read this thread. When we write our representatives demanding this 10% cut, are we to ask them to read this thread hoping that they realize it was also 100% cut to pork? If we did that, would you really expect them to actually read this thread?

For the final time - The Federal Budget doesn't get into the Minutia as we know it. Yes, money is split out down the chain and earmarked for this and that -but the Federal Budget as it is gerneral spoken about doesn't deal with that. It deals with programs and agencies on the macro. But yes, if you want to play games and beat the issue to death with little details which don't change the focus or intent - then go right ahead.
I don't see how ANYONE could not understand that pork was getting fully cut. I tend to think you have been trying to argue for argument's sake.

Have a nice day.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Pork and hurricane relief

Pretty good op/ed on the pork issue.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Is this guy for real?

Western Colorado?s chunk of the $284 billion highway bill that Congress passed this year is necessary for the region?s development, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Wednesday.

?I don?t think there?s any pork in there,? Salazar said. ?Our roads are not in great shape.?

The economic development of the region is dependent on its roads, said Salazar, a member of the House Transportation Committee.

?I?m not willing to cut any of the projects,? said Salazar, also a member of the Democratic Blue Dog caucus, which opposes Congressional spending on credit and justification for pet projects.

I sure hope his attitude doesn't represent the other Blue Dog caucus members. But then again we're still waiting for BOTH sides to step up to the plate on this issue.

Here is Salazar's "response":
OK, maybe it was just a form letter "response"