Another $400 BILLION 'stimulus' bill?!? You GO girl!

[Spino]

Gotta love Nancy Pelosi... she and the Dems are partying like it's 1999...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-...-14450221.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill
House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Tuesday February 24, 2009, 8:50 am EST
Yahoo! Buzz Print WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.

The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion.

The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week.

Democrats defended the spending increases, saying they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs.

Republicans countered that the spending in the bill far outpaced inflation, and amounted to much higher increases when combined with spending in the stimulus legislation that President Barack Obama signed last week. In a letter to top Democratic leaders, the GOP leadership called for a spending freeze, a step they said would point toward a "new standard of fiscal discipline."

Either way, the bill advanced less than one week after Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that all Republicans in Congress opposed except for three moderate GOP senators.

Apart from spending, the legislation provides Democrats in Congress and Obama an opportunity to reverse Bush-era policy on selected issues.

It loosens restrictions on travel to Cuba, as well as the sale of food and medicine to the communist island-nation.

In another change, the legislation bans Mexican-licensed trucks from operating outside commercial zones along the border with the United States. The Teamsters Union, which supported Obama's election last year, hailed the move.

The Bush administration backed a pilot program to permit up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers access to U.S. roads.

The legislation covers programs for numerous Cabinet-level and other agencies, and takes the place of regular annual spending bills that did not pass last year as a result of a deadlock between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Congressional expenses are included. The bill provides $500,000 for what is described as a Senate "pilot program" that will defray the cost of mass mail postcards to households notifying them of a nearby town meeting to be attended by any senator.

Total disconnect from reality. I love it!

[Lemur]

The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week.

And that's the salient bit. They're trying to pass a budget, not another stimulus bill (and what's with the "fake" "quotes" being used for "emphasis"?). It's perfectly legit to slam the Dems for passing a bloated budget, but it's silly and misleading to pretend it's another round of fiscal stimulus.

Where was all of this fiscal conservatism and outrage during the eight years of deficit spending under President Bush? I'm not being sarcastic, seriously, where was it?

[Vladimir]

And that's the salient bit. They're trying to pass a budget, not another stimulus bill (and what's with the "fake" "quotes" being used for "emphasis"?). It's perfectly legit to slam the Dems for passing a bloated budget, but it's silly and misleading to pretend it's another round of fiscal stimulus.

Where was all of this fiscal conservatism and outrage during the eight years of deficit spending under President Bush? I'm not being sarcastic, seriously, where was it?

It looks like a supplemental spending bill above and beyond what was originally budgeted. I call it a stimulus package, it will stimulate any Democrat's package.

Where was the outrage? Tell me you're not serious.

Oops, you said you were. Pay attention Lemur. Simple answer: Everywhere starting with the drugs for old people program.

[Lemur]

Where was the outrage? Tell me you're not serious.

Why on earth wouldn't I be serious? Under our previous President, our nation's debt (not even factoring unfunded liabilities) went from $6 trillion to $11 trillion. (The output of the entire U.S. economy for one year, by way of comparison, is estimated at $12 trillion.) The federal government's powers were expanded at a crazy pace. The same people who used to scream about Clinton using FISA Court for surveillance didn't bat an eye when Bush asserted that he didn't even need a secret court to spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.

So yeah, pardon me if I've got whiplash.

Simple answer: Everywhere starting with the drugs for old people program.

Right, the Medicare expansion which did nothing to control costs and everything to increase expenses. Another gem from the previous Administration that we'll live with for decades.

Anyway, my point stands. Congress isn't trying to pass another stimulus bill, which makes the thread title misleading and false. It's a supplemental spending bill, and by the lights of the article in the OP, the big fuss is because it's 8% higher than the same bill last year.

Go ahead and dump on them, but at least do it correctly.

[Vladimir]

Why on earth wouldn't I be serious? Under our previous President, our nation's debt (not even factoring unfunded liabilities) went from $6 trillion to $11 trillion. (The output of the entire U.S. economy for one year, by way of comparison, is estimated at $12 trillion.) The federal government's powers were expanded at a crazy pace. The same people who used to scream about Clinton using FISA Court for surveillance didn't bat an eye when Bush asserted that he didn't even need a secret court to spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.

So yeah, pardon me if I've got whiplash.

Right, the Medicare expansion which did nothing to control costs and everything to increase expenses. Another gem from the previous Administration that we'll live with for decades.

Anyway, my point stands. Congress isn't trying to pass another stimulus bill, which makes the thread title misleading and false. It's a supplemental spending bill, and by the lights of the article in the OP, the big fuss is because it's 8% higher than the same bill last year.

Go ahead and dump on them, but at least do it correctly.

This is a good reason why you need to listen to conservative talk radio, and not through a left-leaning filter. Rush and Hannity both complained about the wasteful spending of the Bush administration. I've even bitched about it in the Backroom. What bothers me most is that you present a false facade of being informed. Who drafts the budget? Who creates the bill the President signs? Who collects and spends the money? We're not an autocracy no matter how much you and Dave think we are (you two need your own reality show).

Stay on topic, this isn't about FISA. That old nag was sent to the glue factory.

The thread title doesn't state this is another stimulus bill. The use of quotation marks indicates sarcasm. .

[Lemur]

Addressing your points in order:

(1) I've listened to plenty of Limbaugh, and enjoyed it at times. Hannity, though? He's a 100% shill for a single party, why should I ever bother to listen to him? Please find me a linkable quote of him being critical of President Bush before this year. I'm genuinely curious to hear it. (I'll bet anyone who wants to take me that all of the quotes you find will be attacking President Bush on immigration reform, the one issue where Fox News deicded to part paths with the President.)

(2) What exactly is a "false facade of being informed"? Do I need a special ointment for that?

(3) FISA was "sent to the glue factory"? What does that even mean? Last I checked, FISA was still the law of the land.

(4) I love how quotation marks can mean whatever you want them to mean. That's some magical power you have there.

[Vladimir]

Addressing your points in order:

(1) I've listened to plenty of Limbaugh, and enjoyed it at times. Hannity, though? He's a 100% shill for a single party, why should I ever bother to listen to him? Please find me a linkable quote of him being critical of President Bush before this year. I'm genuinely curious to hear it.

(2) What exactly is a "false facade of being informed"? Do I need a special ointment for that?

(3) FISA was "sent to the glue factory"? What does that even mean? Last I checked, FISA was still the law of the land.

(4) I love how quotation marks can mean whatever you want them to mean. That's some magical power you have there.

1. Wow, we actually agree on Hannity. I can only take 10 minutes a day. I listen to him less and less because I've heard it all by now. I'll contact my peeps on the nearest habitable planet so they can let me know when the broadcast comes their way. Until then, I don't have a link.

2. You like to post facts, figures, and links but I can't believe you're unaware of how fiscal conservatives view Bush 43. You must have filtered that out.

3. OT

4. "Yes."

[Fisherking]

Come on guys! It is rather pointless. You can make it a partisan name calling match if you like, but geh!

About the only true things the parties tell you is what liars the other party is.

The biggest crooks are the ones in office or in power. Right now that makes it the Dems…

Last year it was the other way around.

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee!

I say we do away with voting for people who want the office! I say we draft candidates like jury duty…then voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t taste quite so bad.

[Spino]

And that's the salient bit. They're trying to pass a budget, not another stimulus bill (and what's with the "fake" "quotes" being used for "emphasis"?). It's perfectly legit to slam the Dems for passing a bloated budget, but it's silly and misleading to pretend it's another round of fiscal stimulus.

Well that's the thing, this new budget is a bit like a Platypus in that it compels me to ask what the hell is it? Stimulus? Budget? Both? I like Reese's Peanut Butter cups as much as the next pleb but let's keep these ingredients separate, eh? You just know they're bound to label the heaping piles of fat contained within that budget as 'necessary additional stimulus' or some such nonsense. Didn't you get the memo? Stimulus is the new black in Congress.

Where was all of this fiscal conservatism and outrage during the eight years of deficit spending under President Bush? I'm not being sarcastic, seriously, where was it?

So long as we're continuing to replay last season's games keep in mind two of those eight years saw the Democrats ruling the roost in Congress and as I recall they didn't have much to offer in the way of... well, something different (Obama included). And try not to forget that many Dems enthusiastically voted for those same deficit bloating bills the Neo-Con tainted Republicans passed with abandon (i.e. Medicare, No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Iraq). Don't get me wrong, I wasn't too happy about the lack of fiscal conservatism back then either. As I've stated in other posts, the only things that gave me comfort about the Bush/Neo-Con era were the tax cuts, SCOTUS appointments & the initial campaign in Afghanistan. However since I don't have a time machine that will allow me to roll back the clock and fix things I'm more concerned about the here and now and fabulously underwhelming world of tomorrow.

All I know is the proverbial excrement is hitting the fan and the only solution our new Messianic President and Democratic Congress can come up with is to throw even more steaming piles of newly printed dollars onto the spinning blades. Why should the fact that the Republicans behaved badly when they ruled the roost make me feel any better about what the Democrats are doing now?!?

Basically since nobody is going to slam on the brakes and stop this madness I'm going to content myself with name calling, finger pointing and cackling like a crazed fiend as it all comes a tumblin' down.... and continue the hideous practice of 'indulging' in "flagrant" 'abuse' of "fake" 'quotes' when "applicable"....

[Lemur]

Are you seriously suggesting that we stop dumping money in the money hole?

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm just happy Joe " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4 " Biden is going to watch over the first stimulus package. Thank God!!! LOL


Vlad, never mind what Lemur and I think, its mainly just pillow talk....

[Devastatin Dave]

Sorry Lemur, but the Dems have been in charge for the past 2 years regardless of what you and Acorn preach.

[Major Robert Dump]

Ah yes, the old they did/didn't do it so we will/won't do it too cycle comes full circle.

As I recall plenty of right leaning pundits and orgahs complained about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and interpretation of presidential powers, its the right leaning politicians that kept their mouths shut and toed the line in most cases,. Of course, there were always some who defied, and their voices echoed silence in the chambers.

So while labeling conservatives as a whole, and orgahs, as not being concerned with Bush and a Republican Congress (if that was your intent) I think you are wrong, Lemur. However, you are certainly on target when it comes to some of the current loudmouth minority who sat back and tapped their boots and twiddled their thumbs under Bush.

I get hand-me-down conservative magazines from my friends all the time, I think in some issues of the National Review there were more anti-bush policy articles than in lefty magazines for the same month. But the pundits sre in no position to change anything, that has to come from the people in office, who are scum.

Stop fighting please! In the timeless words of Rodney King "Can't we all just do some PCP?"