Republicans should refuse stimulus money

[Zoom-boing]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are traditional earmarks -- funding for a project inserted by a lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process -- according to the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also killed or reduced a number of projects they considered objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

care

Non-traditional pork -- the other white meat.


I consider this to define pork, be it politics or stimulus or . . . whatever.

The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

Pork barrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Annie]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are traditional earmarks -- funding for a project inserted by a lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process -- according to the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also killed or reduced a number of projects they considered objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

care

Non-traditional pork -- the other white meat.


I consider this to define pork, be it politics or stimulus or . . . whatever.

The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

Pork barrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed. Earmarks are one way to get pork in, wasn't needed in this case, this was a free for all!

 

[Care4all]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are traditional earmarks -- funding for a project inserted by a lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process -- according to the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also killed or reduced a number of projects they considered objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

care

Nice try..."Government funding of something that benefits a particular district that wins favor with local voters." Like I said, nice try.

no trying here....look up the definition of EARMARK(Pork)....

it is a rewriting of history to now call local district projects as PORK....when pork is clearly what it has always been, spending slipped in to legislation that was never voted on....where congress was unaware....

I would say that i was wrong about there being no pork, to a degree...as example, Reid's little golden goose project was voted on, by the Senate, but it was 2 billion when they voted for it....but after conference, this golden egg goose came out at 8 billion dollars.....now granted, this was not slipped in there or hidden and the Senate did get to vote on the conference report.....but i would call that sneaky or pork, to a degree....

i did not say there is NOT a bunch of WASTEFUL SPENDING in this bill, just that it does not meet the definition of PORK by the watchdog agencies that report government pork, because every measure of this bill was voted on and above board.

 

[Care4all]

ok, i just reread the definition and i think I was wrong....because they only have to meet TWO of the seven criteria below to qualify...


Citizens against government waste defines it this way....

# Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
# Not specifically authorized;
# Not competitively awarded;
# Not requested by the President;
# Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
# Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
# Serves only a local or special interest.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina took umbrage at my writing that his approach to the economic crisis is to do nothing. I'll deal with his "ideas" in a moment, but first let me make a modest proposal:

If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

First, this statement is a NON SEQUITUR. NOT TAKING ALLOCATED MONEY WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT SPENDING WHICH ALLOCATED THE MONEY...

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

As should every State Governor... they should cut back on 70% of their state budgets reduce services to what they should have been all along, next to nothing beyond essential infrastructure, roads, bridges, law enforcement and other such issues which support and otherwise inspire a sound culture and viable commerce.

But they will not because they have to varying degrees become corrupt by power and as a result fail to lead, and instead seek to do little but appease their constituents, in what amounts to little more than influence peddling...

It should also be noted the this bill prohibits any state of business within the relevant categories FROM REJECTING THE MONEY... the reason for that is it is REASONABLE to reject the government control on your means to produce IF you reject their money and they simply can't have that...

I expoect you'll begin to here VERY soon, bow taking bailout money is the Patriotic thing to do... 'Take the money and SPEND IT! It's your PATRIOTIC DUTY AS AN AMERICAN!"

ROFL... Leftists...

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.

Commentary: If you oppose stimulus, don't take the money - CNN.com

[/QUOTE]

Well that is CRIMINAL! That this author is advocating that a governor reject taking federal money because the state is so feeble that is has to take a 30% profit on the taxes the collective pays is ABSURD. NO STATE should be taking on ONE CENT more in taxes than it pays out... FOR ANY REASON...

But what is so cool to me is how this article is advanced as some idiotic attempt to prove that Conservative principle can't afford not to accept the graft of federal coin...

Put me in charge of this operation and watch Federal tax dollars dry up OVER NIGHT.

I would cut off every DIME of social spending from Social Security to Medicaid, through WIC... there would not be a CENT leaving DC headed to a state or an individual which did not support the common good of the Union... Of course, I'd cut the tax and regulatory liability as well... So employees would be getting every dime minus 10% for federal income tax to support the US military and the significantly smaller federal government... Congress would be expanded four times it's size and they would pay rent on their offices, pay for their own staff out of their federal salary... they'd be buying private insurance and when they left office, they would draw their last federal check on the way out of town... NO RETIREMENT, NO HEALTH INSURANCE... but they could come back any time to reddress their government. And if they were found to be providing their representatives with any gift what so ever, beyond a contribution to their campaign... they'd go to prison for bribery for 15 long ones; and the legislator that accepted anything above a modest campaign contribution who was found advancing ANY FORM OF INFLUENCE towards policy being sought by such lobbiest would be serving the same 15 years right along with them.

It's not complicated: "Senator did you vote YES for Bill 2009XXX? Yes or no..." If its yes and YES was the policy advocacy of the individual who gifted them seats to the Red Skin Game... Buh Bye!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?



care

Nice try..."Government funding of something that benefits a particular district that wins favor with local voters." Like I said, nice try.

no trying here....look up the definition of EARMARK(Pork)....

it is a rewriting of history to now call local district projects as PORK....when pork is clearly what it has always been, spending slipped in to legislation that was never voted on....where congress was unaware....

I would say that i was wrong about there being no pork, to a degree...as example, Reid's little golden goose project was voted on, by the Senate, but it was 2 billion when they voted for it....but after conference, this golden egg goose came out at 8 billion dollars.....now granted, this was not slipped in there or hidden and the Senate did get to vote on the conference report.....but i would call that sneaky or pork, to a degree....

i did not say there is NOT a bunch of WASTEFUL SPENDING in this bill, just that it does not meet the definition of PORK by the watchdog agencies that report government pork, because every measure of this bill was voted on and above board.

LOOK DUMBASS... Pork refers to the BACON! As in "Bringing home THE BACON" AS IN PORK... Earmarks are pork and ITS ALL BEEN VOTED ON... it just hasn't been debated, discussed, or otherwise considered... But its been VOTED ON!

Almost NONE of the legislation in the $pendulou$ bill has been debated... it's OVER A 1000 pages... It would take MONTHS to debate that thing... and that is IF they limited debate to a given porkchop to 30 minutes each.

This bill is GRAND THEFT... plain and simple and it is SOCIALISM ON THE MARCH.

But with any luck it will lead to an open and hostile civil war... as such a war will result in the absolute evisceration of the ideological left and the departure o fthe stinkin' thinkin' from what forms upon their rotting corpses after the fight.

 

[Ravi]

By any definition stimulus money from the government is pork and it's meant to create jobs. I guess it makes ya'll feel better to think about it that way.

Your wrong. The stimulus money that creates jobs effeciently is not pork. but when you spend money where it takes 900,000 to create one job is not efficient. This bill is laden with it. Like the magnetic rail system from Disneyland to Las Vegas...that's just paying back Harry Reid, and just maybe the money can be spent more efficently...do ya think? Like maybe clean energy such as nuclear power...which by the way was taken out of the bill. This bill has a lot of money being spent foolishly, just to pay back the "backers". A lot of this could be put in the federal budget, and debated at that point. Remember...this is a stimulus bill...not, everything and the kitchen sink bill.

A magnetic rail system wouldn't create jobs?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

By any definition stimulus money from the government is pork and it's meant to create jobs. I guess it makes ya'll feel better to think about it that way.

Your wrong. The stimulus money that creates jobs effeciently is not pork. but when you spend money where it takes 900,000 to create one job is not efficient. This bill is laden with it. Like the magnetic rail system from Disneyland to Las Vegas...that's just paying back Harry Reid, and just maybe the money can be spent more efficently...do ya think? Like maybe clean energy such as nuclear power...which by the way was taken out of the bill. This bill has a lot of money being spent foolishly, just to pay back the "backers". A lot of this could be put in the federal budget, and debated at that point. Remember...this is a stimulus bill...not, everything and the kitchen sink bill.

A magnetic rail system wouldn't create jobs?

Not much... nope... nor would it create customers to pay for it's existance.

Unless you're going to create a magnetic rail system that takes people to their HOUSE and business... Americans do NOT want to ride the damn train. Have you ever ridden a train? It's cute for a few minutes... but it's the rail equivelent of a LOCAL BUS... No thanks.

 

[auditor0007]

Foolish idea.

More partisan blather.

This time DEMOCRATIC blather, but still blather nevertheless.

We need all the oars in the water pulling in the same direction if we're going to have a hope in hell of this thing working.

Any wanker who seeks to divide the loyalties of the American people at this stage of affairs, is a damned fool.

Exactly the point.

The Republicans will oppose the stimulus to score cheap political points, but they will gladly accept the money because they need help.

They'll accept it, because if they do not, those funds will just be diverted to a state willing to accept them. Then they get zero and still have to help foot the bill. What kind of idiot are you anyway? Are you really that stupid?

 

[driveby]

Foolish idea.

More partisan blather.

This time DEMOCRATIC blather, but still blather nevertheless.

We need all the oars in the water pulling in the same direction if we're going to have a hope in hell of this thing working.

Any wanker who seeks to divide the loyalties of the American people at this stage of affairs, is a damned fool.

Exactly the point.

The Republicans will oppose the stimulus to score cheap political points, but they will gladly accept the money because they need help.

They'll accept it, because if they do not, those funds will just be diverted to a state willing to accept them. Then they get zero and still have to help foot the bill. What kind of idiot are you anyway? Are you really that stupid?

Rhetorical .......

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Foolish idea.

More partisan blather.

This time DEMOCRATIC blather, but still blather nevertheless.

We need all the oars in the water pulling in the same direction if we're going to have a hope in hell of this thing working.

Any wanker who seeks to divide the loyalties of the American people at this stage of affairs, is a damned fool.

Exactly the point.

The Republicans will oppose the stimulus to score cheap political points, but they will gladly accept the money because they need help.

They'll accept it, because if they do not, those funds will just be diverted to a state willing to accept them. Then they get zero and still have to help foot the bill. What kind of idiot are you anyway? Are you really that stupid?

Man, Chris' stupidity is analogous to an iceberg... it's a lumbering mass of cold nothingness... a burden to be avoided and occasionaly providing a place for small sub-creatures to take refuge... only a small fraction of it's whole is observable without going into the dark wetness in which it floats; and buddy... you don't wanna go their without very specialized equipment.

 

[Chris]

I know the Republicans will stand on principle and refuse the stimulus money.

They know it's bad for America, and they will not take it.

They will give it back.

 

[Ravi]

I know the Republicans will stand on principle and refuse the stimulus money.

They know it's bad for America, and they will not take it.

They will give it back.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

 

[driveby]

I know the Republicans will stand on principle and refuse the stimulus money.

They know it's bad for America, and they will not take it.

They will give it back.

puff puff give ...

 

[WillowTree]

I know the Republicans will stand on principle and refuse the stimulus money.

They know it's bad for America, and they will not take it.

They will give it back.

Just add that to your "I'm stupid as a frog" list.. Republicans pay taxes, lots of taxes and will take the money.. so sorry tough shit.

 

[Charles_Main]

Chris is a fool. If the Democrats are going to spend the money anyways. I see no reason for the Red states to refuse it. This is just Chris being the Ultra partisan hack he is. If the red states refused the money we would not save one dime. The Democrats would simply spend it in the blue states.

Besides this whole red state Blue state business is a joke. Dumb ass Chris seems to think that red states have No democrats living in them, and visa versa. He is such a simpleton it is not even funny.

 

[WillowTree]

Chris is a fool. If the Democrats are going to spend the money anyways. I see no reason for the Red states to refuse it. This is just Chris being the Ultra partisan hack he is. If the red states refused the money we would not save one dime. The Democrats would simply spend it in the blue states.

Besides this whole red state Blue state business is a joke. Dumb ass Chris seems to think that red states have No democrats living in them, and visa versa. He is such a simpleton it is not even funny.

sounds to me as if he's willing to let the libwals living in the red states starve to death.. so much for compassion..

 

[Lycurgus]

Republicans should refuse stimulus money

That's fine, just don't take any of my money to pay for it, then you have a deal.

 

[KittenKoder]

The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.

The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.

The Red states are welfare queens.

Alaska is the worst offender.

That's bullshit ... even I know that and I supported Dems a lot more than Reps for a long time, just now the Dems have completely lost their minds this time around. How do I know that's bullshit: Washington state, a blue state for life, we are broke and begging from the government just as much as any other now. We have had equal power of con and liberal, dem and rep, and they still managed to destroy our economy. Even Microsoft is no longer able to support us ... and that's bad. I know many other blue states in the same boat as well. It's not just red and blue, and that's your problem as well as the reason nothing has been getting better for a long time. If you really cared about the country you'd ignore party affiliation and start looking for a real solution instead of blindly siding with some American Idol star just because he shares the same political label you do.

 

[KittenKoder]

Chris is a fool. If the Democrats are going to spend the money anyways. I see no reason for the Red states to refuse it. This is just Chris being the Ultra partisan hack he is. If the red states refused the money we would not save one dime. The Democrats would simply spend it in the blue states.

Besides this whole red state Blue state business is a joke. Dumb ass Chris seems to think that red states have No democrats living in them, and visa versa. He is such a simpleton it is not even funny.

sounds to me as if he's willing to let the libwals living in the red states starve to death.. so much for compassion..

Willow, from many of your other posts you are no better.