-
Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Good thing we put Democrats in charge to stop things like this:link
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
All in all, a wonderful system that should be exported as an example throughout the world. /sc off
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
what? no additional funds for AmTrak this bill? wth...dems are letting me down.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
GAH! Why can't they just pass the law which says that any bill can only cover one subject at a time? This system of "buying votes" for serious bills by promising local pork is just insane.
Ok, I know why they operate this way, but as long as I'm directing my urine stream toward an incoming low pressure front, I'll ask for term limits too.
Maybe one of the many Constitutional experts here can answer a question for me. Most states have a provision for getting a referendum on a ballot as long as a specified number of signatures supporting it are submitted on a petition. Does such an animal exist on the Federal level? If not, then we are doomed.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
One nice thing about the Dems coming to power in the legislative branch: die-hard Republicans are now willing to talk about pork again.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Quote:
$100 million for citrus assistance
I always thought those poor oranges didn't get enough attention and funding to help them in the plight......
:gah: :tumbleweed:
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
If these investments are worth making, they should stand on their own merits rather than tagging along on the coattails of more noticeable bills.
Ajax
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
If these investments are worth making, they should stand on their own merits rather than tagging along on the coattails of more noticeable bills.
Ajax
Oh gosh! Well I think you have just hit the nail on the head…
This has been a tactic for years and years and when people try to change it…well it gets real ugly.
Most congressmen don't read the bills anyway and the more critical the legislation the more silly riders they can get away withy putting in there.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
I know; and I know it's not likely to change. It's just a sad state of affairs.
Ajax
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
If these investments are worth making, they should stand on their own merits rather than tagging along on the coattails of more noticeable bills.
Ajax
True,
though most things sound at least reasonable, and it isn't that much money (we can afford to waste hundreds of millions on minor issues, you have about 30x as many people living in the US, this amount of money is pretty small for a government).
I think it's just the US system, you've got to wonder how little will get done if they'd have to go through the whole process for every single issue, most of those things included would probably cost about as much to get through congress as the amount specified.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
If these congressmen supported the initial bill but then changed their minds due to the alterations to the bill and withdrew their support , they would be flip-floppers who don't support the troops wouldn't they:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
True,
though most things sound at least reasonable, and it isn't that much money (we can afford to waste hundreds of millions on minor issues, you have about 30x as many people living in the US, this amount of money is pretty small for a government).
I think it's just the US system, you've got to wonder how little will get done if they'd have to go through the whole process for every single issue, most of those things included would probably cost about as much to get through congress as the amount specified.
If you look closely these are more a matter of helping special interests than they are of helping the country.
It is mostly helping those who contributed to the election of a particular Congressman or group of them than it is supporting any national interest. It is just an excepted form of corruption plain and simple and not a means for the little guy to make headway against the established order.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
If you look closely these are more a matter of helping special interests than they are of helping the country.
It is mostly helping those who contributed to the election of a particular Congressman or group of them than it is supporting any national interest. It is just an excepted form of corruption plain and simple and not a means for the little guy to make headway against the established order.
Get organised, form your own pressure group and demand support :shrug:
Most of the money is for the agricultural sector, which is always heavily supported (in the US and in Europe), I'm not sure why they'd be the 'most important special interest group', which they'd be judging by this bill. I thought most farmers voted Republican anyway.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Get organised, form your own pressure group and demand support :shrug:
Most of the money is for the agricultural sector, which is always heavily supported (in the US and in Europe), I'm not sure why they'd be the 'most important special interest group', which they'd be judging by this bill. I thought most farmers voted Republican anyway.
While you may see it as just agriculture, these industries are controlled by only a few huge agro-corporations. Most agricultural subsidies were eliminated in the late 1990 or in Bush's first term. The ones that remain are not helping individual farmers to any great extent.
Both parties are likely to help keep these subsidies because they receive money in the form of campaign contributions to do so.
It is not helping to keep the coast of food low or increase availability, just line the pockets of those who benefit.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
While you may see it as just agriculture, these industries are controlled by only a few huge agro-corporations. Most agricultural subsidies were eliminated in the late 1990 or in Bush's first term. The ones that remain are not helping individual farmers to any great extent.
Both parties are likely to help keep these subsidies because they receive money in the form of campaign contributions to do so.
It is not helping to keep the coast of food low or increase availability, just line the pockets of those who benefit.
Rural schools ? Monsanto doesn't own those yet, I believe.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Rural schools ? Monsanto doesn't own those yet, I believe.
I think I said most of the items were junk, not all. But if it has merit it should be able to stand on its own and need not be tucked into a military spending bill. It isn't like there are no educational expenditures that it could not stand with. Besides, do you really know what it means or its details? Lots of things in these bills say something completely different than what they will actually do and all need to be read not just voted on because it has a nice title.
Too often (almost always) Congress just votes on the title and never looks any deeper. Therefore almost everything they intact is rubbish.
There is a need in all governments to pay more attention to what they are doing rather then being complacent and conducting votes because it feels good to vote for some title or other.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Without these addendums to important spending bills or landmark laws, nothing local would get done. It takes Congress forever to get anything done due to all of the partisan feelings down in DC so bills for a congressman's local district will either never make it as a bill or get put on the agenda and get delayed for a year or two
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Without these addendums to important spending bills or landmark laws, nothing local would get done. It takes Congress forever to get anything done due to all of the partisan feelings down in DC so bills for a congressman's local district will either never make it as a bill or get put on the agenda and get delayed for a year or two
Well thats a bastardization of it in a way and goes to a person's view of the Feds. The government doesn't have direct authority to fund state/local programs outside the "grant" and above funding via necessary and proper, instertate commerce. In fact almost all national programs are a bastardizing of the Federal Government's role, but one we've come to accept as it gives us pork to buy votes.
Honestly, who doesn't like bacon?
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
$74 million for peanut storage costs;
Most be talented monkeys.
You could get some decent workers with that money.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Get organised, form your own pressure group and demand support :shrug:
Most of the money is for the agricultural sector, which is always heavily supported (in the US and in Europe), I'm not sure why they'd be the 'most important special interest group', which they'd be judging by this bill. I thought most farmers voted Republican anyway.
You'll find that most of the agri-aid goes to corporate agri-business, big campaign contributors, the little guy with the equivilent 100 acres & a mule gets squat. I remember a while back when a famous news anchor, Tom Brokaw?, benefited by a chinchilla-aid package he happened to be invested in.:laugh4:
Both State & Feds attach these riders as a poltical gambit, poison a bill, force a veto, :fishing: for pork, you name it. There should be a limit on the number of these riders, saying they don't have time to consider most of these issues is hogwash. They don't care what's in any bill, other than the pork they can horsetrade for. Besides, it's too much fun jet setting around on the lobbyist's dime to be bothered. Waddya gonna do, vote them out? Fat chance, most have that covered too.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Without these addendums to important spending bills or landmark laws, nothing local would get done.
Good. Let local government deal with local matters.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Will President Bush finds it in his heart to oppose pork spending bills from Congress as an upstanding supporter of Republican fiscal conservatism?
[/honest question]
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Republican fiscal conservatism is non-existent in this administration.
Like all Presidents, he is concerned with his legacy now. I feel he's going to be disappointed big time in this regard.
We could use an Abraham Lincoln right about now.
-
Re: Congress adds billions in pork to war spending bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Republican fiscal conservatism is non-existent in this administration.
Disappointingly, Bush has never been a fiscal conservative at any point during his time as president. The only "good" he has done fiscally was cutting taxes.
Quote:
Like all Presidents, he is concerned with his legacy now. I feel he's going to be disappointed big time in this regard.
We could use an Abraham Lincoln right about now.
Legacies won't be determined anytime soon. I'm not arguing his will be great (that remains to be seen), I'm just saying that one's legacy is not determined by contemporary views. It's interesting that you bring up Lincoln, in that he too was widely disliked while in office, yet he's now considered one of our greatest presidents. I'm sure while Lincoln was still in office, people thought his legacy would be horrible.
