Iraq Spending Bill

Iraq Spending Bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 4:17:08 PM)
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy. The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments. One year ago: quote: WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Democrats would not give President Bush a "blank check" to continue the war in Iraq, and suggested that Democratic leaders may seek to deny the administration funding to send more troops to Iraq. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/08/pelosi_vows_no_blank_check_on_iraq_funds/ Today: quote: "This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war." Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071219/D8TKQ7LO0.html Appropriate for this time of year - the Bill included many "gifts" made on credit cards paid by US tax payers. Its so bad the NY Times, who no one can accuse of "right wing bias" couldn't control themselves and stated the obvious: quote: Despite their campaign talk about earmark reform last fall, the new Democratic leadership shamelessly used pork to buy votes — before the vote, Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Peter DeFazio of Oregon acknowledged that add-ons for their districts would influence their decisions. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30intro.html What essential programs were approved? How about $20 Million to eradicate Mormon crickets, or $283 Million for something called the "Mild Income Loss Contract Program". Some of my personal favorites from the list: $100 Million for the Democratic & Republican Conventions. $59 Million for contributions to international organizations (none specified) $25 Million for "Safe & Drug Free Schools" program". (Anyone with UM's want to comment on how successful those DARE programs are in your school or community?) $13 Million for Ewe lamb replacement and retention $5 Million for breeding, rearing, and transporting live fish. (Click here for the entire list: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20070330_opchart.pdf ) Some stuff was cut - such as the border protection for stopping the entrance of cheap labor for some industries. I guess that preventing illegal immigration of people wasn't as high a priority as say, preventing illegal immigration of fish. You can't make this stuff up. The President "only" wanted $750k but smelling blood in the water, bi-partisan support, generated a $3.25Million bill for us to pay: quote: Bush proposed an earmark of $750,000 to help build an electrical barrier that would shock the carp back down the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and keep them out of the lake. By the time the Energy and Water bill was approved by the Senate, Bush was joined by four Democrats -- Majority Whip Dick Durbin and fellow Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- in a five-way earmark providing $3.25 million for the electric fish fence.. Source: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38890&dcn=todaysnews In keeping with our government's humanitarian focus - $70 Billion to Iraq - $2 Million to address the problems in Uganda. Political party affiliation is blurred more with every vote. Your choice is Yes or No based upon the results as a whole. Anybody still want to vote for an incumbent?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 4:23:58 PM)
I'm right with you in the disgust, merc

pahunkboy -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 5:43:22 PM)
Prescott bush

erebus -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 7:37:16 PM)
That's why conservatives (Democrat (hey there's a few left) and Republican (hey there's a few left)) pine away for a line-item veto. The president could strip out all of this nonsense. This is one reason the country is slowly being destroyed.

popeye1250 -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 8:33:35 PM)
Go Ron Paul.

subfever -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 9:59:59 PM)
This would be a great time for any of you die-hard democrats to step forward and explain just how the democrats are any better these days than the slimeball republicans.

Owner59 -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/20/2007 10:47:57 PM)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/weekinreview/02herszenhorn.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin “They think we have control of the Senate while we merely have custody,” he said, alluding to the party’s 51-49 majority. “They think that we can control the Senate when in fact we are nine votes short of having the 60 votes that you need to actually run the Senate. So the Senate is a choke point on everything.” And a choke point it is. Mr. Obey’s spending bill, providing $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also setting a deadline for redeployment from Iraq, was approved by the House 218 to 203. But only 53 senators voted to close debate, killing the bill. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?nav=rss_politics Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy. Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 7:13:24 AM)
quote: Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Owner, Yeah that must be why the only thing lower than President Bush's approval rating is the rating for Congress and Senate. Getting the cost of college down and those homeland security recommendations were at the top of everyone's list of expectations for the change in the majority party in Congress. I know everyone in CA was very effected by the raise in minimum wage until they discovered the CA minimum was already higher. However, since the illegal immigrants weren't impacted, it didn't effect the corporate farms; and the cost of lawn care, nanny services, pool cleaning, and house cleaning was not impacted. Yes Nancy Pelosi delivered as expected. Why is it that all the promised were based upon obtaining a majority but after the fact the majority wasn't enough? When Ms Pelosi made her commitment wasn't it based upon the reality of the make up of the House and Senate after the elections? When she made her "blank check" comment didn't you think that if the withdraw for troops didn't happen immediately any additional funding would have a troop reduction or withdrawal and local take over of the areas security would be a required contingent of any additional funding. I guess in political speak there isn't a "blank check". Every few months a number has to be filled in and this time it was 'only' $70 Billion. Will this be part of the reelection platform for incumbent Democrats? "No Blank Check - Only Checks with Numbers!" Or maybe - "Re-Elect a Democratic Congress - We ONLY gave $70 Billion last time!" I do admire your loyalty. Hope it works for you and you get satisfaction from being the party in power and achieving those key 5 out of 6 initiatives. You know, if you didn't list them, it would have been interesting to see if anyone else could list the 'accomplishments' of the 100th Congress. I don't know about you, but this wasn't my expectation when I voted 'no' and casted a vote for the opponent of all incumbents regardless of party affiliation.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 8:18:53 AM)
To be fair, the Dems have gotten a few of the things done that they said they would. The problem is, they are still doing it with business as usual politics. All these fucking earmarks are horrible. I do not like earmarks from any party, and all they are for is to get more money for things the feds should not be funding. I believe the business as usual politics is what the American people dislike, and why the approval rating is so low. Many want to say the Dems were put in to stop the war, but that is only some of why the people turned over their servant. The war is not going to be fixed in the blink of an eye, but they could work on economy, immigration problems, health care, and other things. Someone needs to step across the aisle, instead of continuing to look at this as a game between the Republicans and Democrats. Loyalty to the American people should be first, not party loyalty.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 9:26:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf To be fair, the Dems have gotten a few of the things done that they said they would. The problem is, they are still doing it with business as usual politics. All these fucking earmarks are horrible. I do not like earmarks from any party, and all they are for is to get more money for things the feds should not be funding. I believe the business as usual politics is what the American people dislike, and why the approval rating is so low. Many want to say the Dems were put in to stop the war, but that is only some of why the people turned over their servant. The war is not going to be fixed in the blink of an eye, but they could work on economy, immigration problems, health care, and other things. Someone needs to step across the aisle, instead of continuing to look at this as a game between the Republicans and Democrats. Orion, "Fair" is a place to enjoy corn-dogs and ride the ferris wheel. I didn't think the vote necessarily was one for against the war. Pragmatic facts make total and immediate withdraw a fantasy. However last November's vote was FOR change. Notice any? Just look at the numbers. You really can use the word "only" for Iraq spending because the it was ONLY $70 Billion out of a total of $555 Billion. Then there are the constituents, self satisfied with name calling, as if calling the President "Monkey-boy" or some other such immature label. That raises the level for the office doesn't it? Yet, these same sycophants get personally insulted if their personal label is questioned. Yet, that is the intelligence level of the average voter. That's the level that must be placated and encouraged to mobilize by mud slinging and worrying about isolated aspects of their lifestyle and their family. Tell me, do you think your vote should be decided by who called who the worst name, the funniest name? How about who's son abused a pet, or whose brother is behind in his child support. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know what they are going to do about the criminals hiring illegal worker, the budget deficit, the US as "World Cop" and how will I be paying for social engineering and entitlement programs that don't work and have no accountability. Sorry, if a "floating cross" doesn't move me one way or the other. Sorry if I don't see the voting implications of a brother not paying child support and wonder why its a news story in the first place. I guess I just don't have the intellect to derive satisfaction from name calling or labeling another. The McCain-Feingold campaign reform act effectively put the candidacy to elected office out of the hands of any individual without a huge personal bankroll. Elections now are a business transaction funded by PACs. As long as people are motivated to vote in the same way they are motivated for their entertainment - who has the best 'buzz' or catch phase; there is no electorate pressure to remove the curtain and see who/what's behind it. It is why I support voting 'no'. No to anyone currently in office. If they don't do the job, do the same thing next time. The beauty of House elections is that their 2 year term is the equivalent of a "vote of confidence" for the existing government. Do you have confidence in the collective group running the government now? Does party identity and being the party in power empower you to feel good about yourself and your country? The problem is in the numbers. The other side of the $555 Billion appropriations bill is that outside the $70 Billion for Iraq, there was $485 Billion of bribes paid in that bill. That buys a LOT of votes. Those illegally immigrating fish in Illinois will be sure to vote to re-elect their local representatives who brought back $3.25 Million to shock fish. Building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska didn't generate disgust - it got that rep re-elected. Meanwhile, the corporations get the big bucks. Thinking this is a partisan issue is yet more self deception. As if being and saying you are a Democrat represents the image of John and Bobby Kennedy. Anyone looking in detail at their programs and platforms in a blind review would think them right of Ronald Reagan. The same is true in the 'red' states; be it the image of Reagan, Eisenhower, or Lincoln compares to any of the current batch of candidates running under the Republican banner. quote: Loyalty to the American people should be first, not party loyalty. Orion, that is a GREAT ambition. However as long as the most an American can contribute to a candidate is $4,000 while a PAC or corporation can donate Millions; it won't happen. It doesn't make sense for any candidate to be loyal to individuals. They have to 'con' individuals. They have to placate those driven by name-calling. They have to play to the that lowest common denominator of voter. But the money needed to get elected comes from a different place. Its why the day after the election when their 'boss' calls it's more important to keep illegal fish out of a river than a cheap workforce from taking jobs from Americans.

subfever -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 9:26:43 AM)
My point, which I admittedly failed to point out, is that it's business as usual. The democrats have become the same pigs at the same trough that the republicans have long fed upon.

subfever -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 9:38:50 AM)
Now there's an excellent explanation of why it's business as usual! Therefore, the only answer is to change the system. Or put in other words... address the cause and not the symptoms.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 11:11:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Orion, "Fair" is a place to enjoy corn-dogs and ride the ferris wheel. Then use the word just or equitable. Picking at words, is really petty and non-productive. quote: I didn't think the vote necessarily was one for against the war. Pragmatic facts make total and immediate withdraw a fantasy. However last November's vote was FOR change. Notice any? I do not notice any and stated such in my post. Did you notice me saying that? There was supposed to be change in 96 and 98, when the Republicans gained control, and there was still the business as usual politics. What happened to that Contract with America? quote: Just look at the numbers. You really can use the word "only" for Iraq spending because the it was ONLY $70 Billion out of a total of $555 Billion. I agree and all the "earmarks" that all politicians use, is bullshit and should be eliminated from all bills. The people need to let their servants know, or the silence condones the practice. quote: Then there are the constituents, self satisfied with name calling, as if calling the President "Monkey-boy" or some other such immature label. That raises the level for the office doesn't it? Yet, these same sycophants get personally insulted if their personal label is questioned. Yet, that is the intelligence level of the average voter. That's the level that must be placated and encouraged to mobilize by mud slinging and worrying about isolated aspects of their lifestyle and their family. Tell me, do you think your vote should be decided by who called who the worst name, the funniest name? How about who's son abused a pet, or whose brother is behind in his child support. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know what they are going to do about the criminals hiring illegal worker, the budget deficit, the US as "World Cop" and how will I be paying for social engineering and entitlement programs that don't work and have no accountability. Sorry, if a "floating cross" doesn't move me one way or the other. Sorry if I don't see the voting implications of a brother not paying child support and wonder why its a news story in the first place. I guess I just don't have the intellect to derive satisfaction from name calling or labeling another. I do not disagree but the "cheer leading" happens on both sides, and will continue to do so as long as there is a line drawn between people. I believe I said as much as you have above, just in a lot less words. quote: The McCain-Feingold campaign reform act effectively put the candidacy to elected office out of the hands of any individual without a huge personal bankroll. Elections now are a business transaction funded by PACs. As long as people are motivated to vote in the same way they are motivated for their entertainment - who has the best 'buzz' or catch phase; there is no electorate pressure to remove the curtain and see who/what's behind it. Remove corporations from having the same rights as a person, and the field will be more level. quote: It is why I support voting 'no'. No to anyone currently in office. If they don't do the job, do the same thing next time. The beauty of House elections is that their 2 year term is the equivalent of a "vote of confidence" for the existing government. Do you have confidence in the collective group running the government now? Does party identity and being the party in power empower you to feel good about yourself and your country? I have been pushing this for 7 years, but there are too many cheerleaders to be effective at the moment. Just need to keep pushing it, until the cheerleaders are in the minority, and their slave morality will kick in. quote: The problem is in the numbers. The other side of the $555 Billion appropriations bill is that outside the $70 Billion for Iraq, there was $485 Billion of bribes paid in that bill. That buys a LOT of votes. Those illegally immigrating fish in Illinois will be sure to vote to re-elect their local representatives who brought back $3.25 Million to shock fish. Building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska didn't generate disgust - it got that rep re-elected. Meanwhile, the corporations get the big bucks. It is a problem but the cheerleaders will only mention it, if the other side gets more. Notice the equal amounts for each political party? Our tax dollars should not go to any political party. quote: Thinking this is a partisan issue is yet more self deception. As if being and saying you are a Democrat represents the image of John and Bobby Kennedy. Anyone looking in detail at their programs and platforms in a blind review would think them right of Ronald Reagan. The same is true in the 'red' states; be it the image of Reagan, Eisenhower, or Lincoln compares to any of the current batch of candidates running under the Republican banner. Agreed again, but many make it an "us and them" game, like it is a football game. Just look at some posters here, and how they slam just Democrats or just Republicans. quote: Orion, that is a GREAT ambition. However as long as the most an American can contribute to a candidate is $4,000 while a PAC or corporation can donate Millions; it won't happen. It doesn't make sense for any candidate to be loyal to individuals. They have to 'con' individuals. They have to placate those driven by name-calling. They have to play to the that lowest common denominator of voter. But the money needed to get elected comes from a different place. Its why the day after the election when their 'boss' calls it's more important to keep illegal fish out of a river than a cheap workforce from taking jobs from Americans. All great things started with ambition first. Need more than just campaign reform, you need people to wake up to what is actually happening, and has been happening for sometime now. Politicians are a separate class of people, and they believe themselves above us peasants. They no longer believe they are servants of the people, and most people do not have the balls to vote out a "winner" because the other side may get someone else in there, and they consider that "losing" in this big game they are "cheerleaders" in.

aviinterra -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 11:51:59 AM)
This just shows that there really is no difference between the dems and the reps. Once in front of the dinner table, everyone wants a share of the cake. With each passing day of this lunacy, I am so much more for a smaller govt., or just leave it in the hands of states and cities. Aside from war and such, what exactly is the fed. govt. for nowadays?

popeye1250 -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/21/2007 12:11:34 PM)
You can almost bet that every corporation in the country is making money off of Iraq. THAT's the name of the game! Do you think (they) want out of Iraq anytime soon? This is a lisense to rob the U.S. Taxpayers blind!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iraq Spending Bill (12/22/2007 7:36:08 AM)
I just thought of something. Why does this bill give money to the Dem and Rep conventions? Where is the equal money for all the other parties? This earmark bullshit is insane.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625