House Passes 1.1 Trillion With 5,000 Earmarks? Say it Ain't So

[antagon]

maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza. reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for. by 87 the markets had enough. it also precipitated the S&L crisis. familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.

trickle-down economics never worked, not in england, not in the US. i think there was just too much tax pre '79, and there was room to improve. reagan, certainly dubya, went overboard and borrowed japanese or chinese money to do this retarded trickling with. statistically, it never did the 'down' part to where the middle class could appreciate it. it is the middle class you want to target directly with all the preference the government can offer, how i see it.

sealybobo makes some good points, but he can go to hell with that union bullshit. that has nothing to do with american prosperity, quality of life, or worker's rights at this point. that 25% would constitute a labor elite with their own corrupt corporate hierarchy.

furthermore, wealthy people arent out to getchya or any of that 'corporate greed' nonesense. there's a case for progressive taxation and all of that, but nobody's out to punish the wealthy. we're not the second highest corporate tax environment on the planet like the maples out there think. they may have never left the country, perhaps. we are one of the best, perhaps the best, environment for business - something we've got to protect for the benefit of all americans.

I respectfully disagree with your post. For one, I lived through the Jimmy Carter years and I also grew up during the cold war where we had air-raid sirens go off once a month on Fridays and we kids were told to crawl under our desks in case of a Russian nuclear attack. We were taught to do this. It was a constant fear in our community as I live very close to Norad, the defense command center for entire U.S and Canada. We were always told that our city was the number 1 hit for a nuclear bomb. You people are probably too young to remember, but it is something I will never forget. I lived it.

Reagan ended that cold war without firing one shot, yes he ran up the deficit and out spent the Russians on defense, they caved and fell as a nation, no longer able to keep up with our defense spending and no longer the threat they used to be.

Reagan inherited a deep recession from Jimmy Carter, the weakest President in history only to be surpassed by Obama in the near future. I remember, because I lived through it, 21% interest rates on mortgage loans, 14% inflation, very high unemployment. It was misery and it was shared misery by the entire nation.

Reagan spent 8 months after he was elected and passed an across the board tax cut, that stimulated the economy creating 20 million new jobs, with more people back to work and more people paying taxes he increased government revenue.

I never stated that he did not deficit spend to accomplish this, but what he did achieve was a great thing through deficit spending, which lead eventually to a balanced budget during Clinton's term.

What we see currently is a whole bunch of deficit spending that is doing little to nothing to create private sector jobs and instead is going to study why " pigs stink" in Iowa.

There'r your difference and it is night and day.

i made a point to say reagan was a great president, and for many of the reasons you'd pointed out, specifically in contrast to carter's and pre-reagan tax ethics. i couldnt control my bowels or walk 10 feet without falling when reagan was elected, and i could only remember how the mid eighties was. my parents were rabid republicans at the time, and partly because of reagan (the rabid part)

i gotta challenge you on the employment record. he had the where's the jobs syndrome for years and years, a way trickle-down did not work. that was the beginning of an era, for better or worse, that the economy's performance was based on the fairly wealthy's investment behavior in stocks and debt, rather than jobs and tangible productivity. we've got a diverse economy, despite that, but similar policy under thatcher has specialized their economy to the banking and investment sector to the degree that theyre still in a contraction phase a couple months since we started to expand here.

i think its fetching to tie reagans deficit spending legacy to clinton's budget responsibility. i tie it to bush's disregard for deficit. he did a lot of 'worked for reagan' moves, but without the insight reagan shown. with war, for example.

 

[Vast LWC]

A left wing spin....I see, Vast. No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.

Which part is "Left-Wing" spin?

The part where I said Republicans had raised spending unbelievably before the Democrats took over congress in 2006? That is a fact. Look it up. (Of course when you look up the budgets, you might want to check out all the additional hidden spending the Federal Government did in the form of war spending, etc.)

The part where Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? I can assure you that that is 100% factual information. Just look it up.

Or was it the part where Bush didn't catch Osama Bin Laden, or reduce the number and power of Al Qaeda after 5 years, Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people dead? Because that is also a FACT. Look it up.

Maybe you meant the part where I referred to the fact that people voted for George Bush "Because he's the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with"? Also factual information.

Or the part where George Bush fucked everything up? Well, ok, maybe that single sentence is a bit of spin. He only fucked MOST things up.

Or maybe you're trying to imply that "stating the facts" is actually "spinning".

 

[Meister]

A left wing spin....I see, Vast. No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.

Which part is "Left-Wing" spin?

The part where I said Republicans had raised spending unbelievably before the Democrats took over congress in 2006? That is a fact. Look it up. (Of course when you look up the budgets, you might want to check out all the additional hidden spending the Federal Government did in the form of war spending, etc.)

The part where Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? I can assure you that that is 100% factual information. Just look it up.

Or was it the part where Bush didn't catch Osama Bin Laden, or reduce the number and power of Al Qaeda after 5 years, Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people dead? Because that is also a FACT. Look it up.

Maybe you meant the part where I referred to the fact that people voted for George Bush "Because he's the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with"? Also factual information.

Or the part where George Bush fucked everything up? Well, ok, maybe that single sentence is a bit of spin. He only fucked MOST things up.

Or maybe you're trying to imply that "stating the facts" is actually "spinning".

I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.

Uh huh. As much as you were "spinning", if we define "spinning" as "stating the facts as we honestly see them".

Of course, that would mean everyone in the world is "spinning" anytime they speak.

 

[Meister]

I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.

Uh huh. As much as you were "spinning", if we define "spinning" as "stating the facts as we honestly see them".

Of course, that would mean everyone in the world is "spinning" anytime they speak.

Your the spin machine, VLW....your the spin machine. What a goofball
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim militants. Again, bin Laden was considered one of the men behind the terrorist attack.
Osama bin Laden

 

[The T]

A left wing spin....I see, Vast. No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.

Which part is "Left-Wing" spin?

The part where I said Republicans had raised spending unbelievably before the Democrats took over congress in 2006? That is a fact. Look it up. (Of course when you look up the budgets, you might want to check out all the additional hidden spending the Federal Government did in the form of war spending, etc.)

The part where Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? I can assure you that that is 100% factual information. Just look it up.

Or was it the part where Bush didn't catch Osama Bin Laden, or reduce the number and power of Al Qaeda after 5 years, Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people dead? Because that is also a FACT. Look it up.

Maybe you meant the part where I referred to the fact that people voted for George Bush "Because he's the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with"? Also factual information.

Or the part where George Bush fucked everything up? Well, ok, maybe that single sentence is a bit of spin. He only fucked MOST things up.

Or maybe you're trying to imply that "stating the facts" is actually "spinning".

If you dear reader don't pay attention to anything else?

Notice the SPIN/Deflection of VLWC?

As If George Bushs' LACK of Veto Pen was WORSE than what the DemocRATS (Who did indeed take over in '06), and CONTINUE their spree is ANY BETTER?

I Guess that VLWC is oblivious to the fact that GWB was taken (metephorically), to the WOODSHED by Conservatives for it...

But The DemocRATS spending us into Slavery for a couple Generations is any better?

VLWC? *YOU need to get a GRIP*, and SHED your Partisan hackery. Your partisan 'SLIP' shows...and it isn't a pretty sight.

DemocRAT SPENDING this Republic into Slavery of the YET TO BE BORN isn't any better NOW as it was THEN under GWB...

 

[LilOlLady]

What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.

Schools projects, foreign language classes, Job Corp and other training programs, medical research, community centers and parks, research of lobster and fisheries, our food source, performing art and theater, and a host of other projects are not pork. Most of this spending will put people back to work, benefit the less fortunate, small town America and not the elite.


The elite don’t know zit about what it is like to be an under privileged child in a substandard school in the inner city or without a job or healthcare. That do not have access to a library, arts or theater and complainers never had to account for a dollar. I did not hear this kind of opposition to government spending when Bush was doing the spending.

 

[Meister]

What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.

Schools projects, foreign language classes, Job Corp and other training programs, medical research, community centers and parks, research of lobster and fisheries, our food source, performing art and theater, and a host of other projects are not pork. Most of this spending will put people back to work, benefit the less fortunate, small town America and not the elite.


The elite don’t know zit about what it is like to be an under privileged child in a substandard school in the inner city or without a job or healthcare. That do not have access to a library, arts or theater and complainers never had to account for a dollar. I did not hear this kind of opposition to government spending when Bush was doing the spending.

All you had to do was turn on your hearing-aid, LilOLady. Conservatives were complaining big time about Bush not vetoing the spending bills that he signed. You do know that spending did go up 23% since 2007...right? This last election was a backlash from republicans to their party.
Your idea of earmarks is a VERY liberal take on spending.

Pork-watchers are only just beginning to sort through the earmarks, which typically are goodies set aside for the districts of members of Congress, as the bill tracks toward a final vote. So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from $700,000 for a shrimp fishing project in Maryland to $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative to $200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000
Republicans, though, have hardly shied away from the earmarks. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is pushing $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. Sen. Judd Gregg, a fiscal hawk, is behind a $1 million earmark for renovation at the Portsmouth Music Hall.
-- $150,000 for educational programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum.

-- $400,000 for renovation of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

-- $150,000 for exhibits at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo, N.Y.

-- $500,000 for Mississippi River exhibits at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa.

-- $200,000 for the Washington National Opera.

-- $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative.

-- $2.7 million for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, to support surgical operations in space.

-- $200,000 for a visitor's center in Bastrop, Texas.

-- $700,000 for a project called, "Shrimp Industry Fishing Effort Research Continuation," at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Silver Spring, Md.

-- $292,200 for the elimination of blight in Scranton, Pa.

-- $750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa.

-- $1.6 million for a tram between the Marshall Flight Center and Huntsville Botanical Garden in Alabama.
-- $655,000 for equipment at the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research in Los Angeles.
FOXNews.com - Watchdogs Cry Foul Over Thousands of Earmarks in Spending Bill

Most of this should be done at the city and state level, and not at the federal level, LilOLady.
With our economy in the state that it is, we just can't afford it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.

Schools projects, foreign language classes, Job Corp and other training programs, medical research, community centers and parks, research of lobster and fisheries, our food source, performing art and theater, and a host of other projects are not pork. Most of this spending will put people back to work, benefit the less fortunate, small town America and not the elite.


The elite don’t know zit about what it is like to be an under privileged child in a substandard school in the inner city or without a job or healthcare. That do not have access to a library, arts or theater and complainers never had to account for a dollar. I did not hear this kind of opposition to government spending when Bush was doing the spending.

All you had to do was turn on your hearing-aid, LilOLady. Conservatives were complaining big time about Bush not vetoing the spending bills that he signed. You do know that spending did go up 23% since 2007...right? This last election was a backlash from republicans to their party.
Your idea of earmarks is a VERY liberal take on spending.

Pork-watchers are only just beginning to sort through the earmarks, which typically are goodies set aside for the districts of members of Congress, as the bill tracks toward a final vote. So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from $700,000 for a shrimp fishing project in Maryland to $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative to $200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000
Republicans, though, have hardly shied away from the earmarks. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is pushing $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. Sen. Judd Gregg, a fiscal hawk, is behind a $1 million earmark for renovation at the Portsmouth Music Hall.
-- $150,000 for educational programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum.

-- $400,000 for renovation of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

-- $150,000 for exhibits at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo, N.Y.

-- $500,000 for Mississippi River exhibits at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa.

-- $200,000 for the Washington National Opera.

-- $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative.

-- $2.7 million for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, to support surgical operations in space.

-- $200,000 for a visitor's center in Bastrop, Texas.

-- $700,000 for a project called, "Shrimp Industry Fishing Effort Research Continuation," at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Silver Spring, Md.

-- $292,200 for the elimination of blight in Scranton, Pa.

-- $750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa.

-- $1.6 million for a tram between the Marshall Flight Center and Huntsville Botanical Garden in Alabama.
-- $655,000 for equipment at the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research in Los Angeles.
FOXNews.com - Watchdogs Cry Foul Over Thousands of Earmarks in Spending Bill

Most of this should be done at the city and state level, and not at the federal level, LilOLady.
With our economy in the state that it is, we just can't afford it.

And just wait until we find out whats in this so called healthcare bill. Any takers on how much pork is fit into it to buy the votes? (or were they maybe promised it in additional bills?)

 

[Meister]

Everything is so transparent with this administration, it should be a cakewalk to follow the money...Kind of like the Yellow Brick Road.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.

Uh huh. As much as you were "spinning", if we define "spinning" as "stating the facts as we honestly see them".

Of course, that would mean everyone in the world is "spinning" anytime they speak.

Your the spin machine, VLW....your the spin machine. What a goofball
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim militants. Again, bin Laden was considered one of the men behind the terrorist attack.
Osama bin Laden

That is a completely false statement.

The United States government has specifically stated that there is no suspicion at all that Osama Bin Laden was in any way connected to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.

Your link doesn't provide any proof at all to back up that statement.

Remember just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.

What is true is that some other people, who later became members of Al Qaeda, were in fact vaguely connected to a small amount of the financing of the 1993 WTC bombing, and that some relatives of the perpetrators of WTC 1993 bombing later became members of Al Qaeda.

But that does not point to any direct connection at all between Osama Bin Laden and the 1993 bombing.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you dear reader don't pay attention to anything else?

Notice the SPIN/Deflection of VLWC?

As If George Bushs' LACK of Veto Pen was WORSE than what the DemocRATS (Who did indeed take over in '06), and CONTINUE their spree is ANY BETTER?

I Guess that VLWC is oblivious to the fact that GWB was taken (metephorically), to the WOODSHED by Conservatives for it...

But The DemocRATS spending us into Slavery for a couple Generations is any better?

VLWC? *YOU need to get a GRIP*, and SHED your Partisan hackery. Your partisan 'SLIP' shows...and it isn't a pretty sight.

DemocRAT SPENDING this Republic into Slavery of the YET TO BE BORN isn't any better NOW as it was THEN under GWB...

The only time George Bush had a "lack of veto pen" issue was when the Republicans held congress.

Once the Democrats took over congress, Bush Vetoed just about every major piece of legislation they sent to his desk. Many other pieces of legislation were put in the "Don't even bother" category due to the fact that the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override the expected veto.

The only time Republicans "took Bush to the woodshed" was after he had been shown to be a massive failure, and he had begun to be a drag on Republican popularity.

It was only after Bush was seen as a detriment to winning votes that the Republicans turned on him.

And 95% of the DEBT that this country has incurred happened UNDER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.

I'm sure you have some spin to try and contradict that fact, but it is a FACT nonetheless.

 

[Meister]

Uh huh. As much as you were "spinning", if we define "spinning" as "stating the facts as we honestly see them".

Of course, that would mean everyone in the world is "spinning" anytime they speak.

Your the spin machine, VLW....your the spin machine. What a goofball
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim militants. Again, bin Laden was considered one of the men behind the terrorist attack.
Osama bin Laden

That is a completely false statement.

The United States government has specifically stated that there is no suspicion at all that Osama Bin Laden was in any way connected to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.

Your link doesn't provide any proof at all to back up that statement.

Remember just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.

What is true is that some other people, who later became members of Al Qaeda, were in fact vaguely connected to a small amount of the financing of the 1993 WTC bombing, and that some relatives of the perpetrators of WTC 1993 bombing later became members of Al Qaeda.

But that does not point to any direct connection at all between Osama Bin Laden and the 1993 bombing.

Yet, we all have to believe that your source of wiki is proof positive.
You have your sources and I have mine...this is why I say get over it, your not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind.

 

[Ame®icano]

You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
What ever happened to the "Hope and Change" jingle?


Projects, known as earmarks, are inserted into annual budget bills at the request of members. Stephen Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said his organization identified 5,224 earmarks in the bill worth about $3.9 billion.
Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com

3.9 billion is not chump change, BFGRN

Compared to 1.1 Trillion it is. .35% of the total to be exact.

It is also a much smaller amount than in similar Republican spending bills passed while they held the majority.

Yeah, what's really 0.35%?

Next time they should pass annual budget of $4 trillion, it would result in much smaller percentage of pork spending and say... "it's only 0.1%".

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah, what's really 0.35%?

Next time they should pass annual budget of $4 trillion, it would result in much smaller percentage of pork spending and say... "it's only 0.1%".

And hey, just go on ignoring the second half of the post, where the point was made.

Here, I'll post it for you again:

It is also a much smaller amount than in similar Republican spending bills passed while they held the majority.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
And that is the point.
Regardless who is in power they all should be smart enough to know that you cannot get out of debt by doubling that debt. But Bush did it just doesn't cut it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
And that is the point.
Regardless who is in power they all should be smart enough to know that you cannot get out of debt by doubling that debt. But Bush did it just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, but that's not how it works.

Cutting the budget is a PROCESS. You can't just all funding off at once, it would lead to the collapse of the national infrastructure, you have to cut things gradually.

 

[The T]

Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
And that is the point.
Regardless who is in power they all should be smart enough to know that you cannot get out of debt by doubling that debt. But Bush did it just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, but that's not how it works.

Cutting the budget is a PROCESS. You can't just all funding off at once, it would lead to the collapse of the national infrastructure, you have to cut things gradually.

Is this why the RUSH to get all these Socialist-NAY-Marxist projects done?

Try again...

 

[antagon]

Is this why the RUSH ....

Limbaugh??

 

[The T]

Is this why the RUSH ....

Limbaugh??

If *I* had meant LIMBAUGH the word would have been embedded with a link, or a Sourced QUOTE.

YOU haven't been around here LONG enough to know this, so *I* give you the BENEFIT...of DOUBT...