Sen. Schumer on Pork Projects in Stimulus

[Preston_79]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded


It's like when the inauguration had such a huge price tag I heard many people, the chattering class, complaining about it. Then I hear a jackass spokesperson saying this is what the people want and don't care about the 60 million price tag. This inauguration is a party for the people to celebrate the beginning of the Obama Presidency. Well duh, but I don't think the people want it to be so expensive. Penny's in the barrel I suppose.

People don't care about pork projects. Well, I'm glad that's finally cleared up.

Gawd damn I'd like to smack the dentures right out of that guys mouth. What an asshole.

[shoe1985]

What some consider pork, others see it as a benefit.

I have heard where people think updated the schools are pork. Yes, making our schools better for the future generations is a pork project.

People think making federal buildings more energy efficient is pork. This could lower the need to raise taxes because oil costs go up so much.

Yes, there are some things I do scratch my head about, but everything that some consider pork, others see as a positive for them.

As for the inauguration, sure it cost a lot of money, but what you don't hear or think about is the amount of money generated to the local businesses in that area created from this event. Could it have been cheaper? Sure it could have been. Maybe we could have reduced the amount of security used. Then there is the chance some crazy racist could have gotten to our President.

For every con related to pork, there will be a pro for it for someone else.

Another example, some people may think fixing the roads is a pork project, I have heard people say this. Come to PA and drive on the highways or just basic roads, they are a mess. We had a bypass built a few years back, there are potholes everywhere from normal driving on it.

Look at Alaska's Road to Nowhere, or whatever it is called, some say it is pork, but for someone like a hunter who would use the road to travel to hunt, it is not pork. There are two sides to this pork issue.

Back to my point, what some may consider pork, others may not.

[Preston_79]

What some consider pork, others see it as a benefit.

I have heard where people think updated the schools are pork. Yes, making our schools better for the future generations is a pork project.

People think making federal buildings more energy efficient is pork. This could lower the need to raise taxes because oil costs go up so much.

Yes, there are some things I do scratch my head about, but everything that some consider pork, others see as a positive for them.

As for the inauguration, sure it cost a lot of money, but what you don't hear or think about is the amount of money generated to the local businesses in that area created from this event. Could it have been cheaper? Sure it could have been. Maybe we could have reduced the amount of security used. Then there is the chance some crazy racist could have gotten to our President.

For every con related to pork, there will be a pro for it for someone else.

Another example, some people may think fixing the roads is a pork project, I have heard people say this. Come to PA and drive on the highways or just basic roads, they are a mess. We had a bypass built a few years back, there are potholes everywhere from normal driving on it.

Look at Alaska's Road to Nowhere, or whatever it is called, some say it is pork, but for someone like a hunter who would use the road to travel to hunt, it is not pork. There are two sides to this pork issue.

Back to my point, what some may consider pork, others may not.

Most of what you say is indeed true. Unfortunately the tax payer has no say in the matter and most of the time has no idea what these pork projects are before they get passed. I personally think they should be done away with.

Schumer is an arrogant fuck for saying people don't care about them. We do care. We cared about them when Republicans had power and we care when Democrats have power. I think it's time for change.

And pork is pork. The money might get spent in a way that benefits you, but if it's passed in this manner then it's a pork project. You shouldn't be able to attach these projects to bills that need to be passed i.e the multi billion dollar bale out.

[shoe1985]

Most of what you say is indeed true. Unfortunately the tax payer has no say in the matter and most of the time has no idea what these pork projects are before they get passed. I personally think they should be done away with.

Schumer is an arrogant fuck for saying people don't care about them. We do care. We cared about them when Republicans had power and we care when Democrats have power. I think it's time for change.

And pork is pork. The money might get spent in a way that benefits you, but if it's passed in this manner then it's a pork project. You shouldn't be able to attach these projects to bills that need to be passed i.e the multi billion dollar bail out.

I don't know anything about Schumer, and won't act like I do. Yes, we do care about what our money is being spent on. We elect these people to use our money for the right things.

I don't disagree with what you said. Like I said, what you and I may consider pork, someone else might not think that way because it would impact their life for the better.

I am for the majority of this new stimulus bill. I want to see schools updated and ready for the future. The roads are a disaster, and need to be rebuilt/repaired. We need to continue pushing for better energy efficient buildings. Oil is going to rise again, and we need to be prepared for when it does. Which is why we need to make sure the right bill gets passed, and the money is used as it is supposed to be used, unlike the Tarp bill.

[Potter82]

yeah, definitely poorly worded on Schumer's part and perfect sound bite fodder for those against the stimulus plan.

The biggest problem I have with this whole debate about pork is how everyone seems to be using different definitions of the term. I saw the list produced by the GOP of alleged pork items in the stimulus and I honestly couldn't understand what all of the fuss was about. If I recall, a lot of the items listed as pork were for education, energy, or other governmental projects and didn't strike me as particularly "pork like."

I honestly think there is a contingent of conservatives out there who seem be suggesting that ANY infrastructure spending is pork, which I find very frustrating given all the reports you hear about a crumbling infrastructure & the fact that it's not exactly something the private sphere can attend to. I mean Alaska's bridge to nowhere was pork not because it was a bridge but because it served no rational purpose, it was totally unnecessary. While I'm sure some of the infrastructure spending maybe unnecessary, I'm sure most of it will be set aside for useful projects - there's no reason why they can't impose check and balances over the use of such funds.

I suppose what frustrates me the most about this pork fixation is that it all seems to miss the big picture - & I think that was what Schumer was getting at as well, albeit not in a very effective way.

The economic situation in the US and the world is horrible and steadily worsening by the day and it just seems absurd to allow small portions of the bill, some only in the millions, to over shadow the entire purpose of the bill which is try to put the economy back on track. I do resent the fact that the House dems pushed for some provisions in this bill that belonged in other pieces of legislation, but on the whole I side with the Democrats on this matter largely because the alternatives, tons of tax cuts or doing absolutely nothing, seem much worse.

[Badbird]

David Schuster (sp?) on MSNBC has had several opponents of the bill on and he asks them point blank what they don't like; what is in it that shouldn't be, and every single one of them stammers like an idiot, going "uh, er, uh" then gives the old "you could go on and on and find stuff."

So he says "Name one" - and they can't.


Or there is the argument that building roads and bridges isn't creating jobs because those are temporary projects with an end date. Yeah, but someone has to do it. Are you kidding? There is a highway project here that has taken over four years to complete. Most bridges, even simple ones, take a year or more. Some "temp job."

[Preston_79]

Sen. Tom Coburn M.D. list of wasteful, non-stimulative spending in new stimulus


• $2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions power plant in Mattoon, IL
• $39 billion slush fund for "state fiscal stabilization" bailout
• $5.5 billion for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
• $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
• $275 million for flood prevention
• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
• $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
• $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
• $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
• $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshall's office buildings
• $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
• $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
• $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
• $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for "science" at NASA)
• $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
• $10 million for urban canals
• $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
• $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
• $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
• $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
• $255 million for "priority procurements" at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
• $500 million for State and local fire stations
• $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
• $500 million for wild land fire management
• $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
• $650 million for abandoned mine sites
• $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
• $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
• $412 million for CDC headquarters
• $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
• $160 million for "volunteers" at the Corp. for National and Community Service
• $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
• $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

Lots of people, projects, institutions want money. Do they really need it especially when money is so tight?

100 million for lead paint reduction? We've been battling the lead paint thing for like 50 years. 800 million for new federal prisons? How's about releasing non-violent offenders from those existing prisons and freeing up some room. 5.5 billion to make Federal buildings green. We all want to go green, but I don't think now is the time to spend 5.5 billion to do it to federal buildings. Amtrak can go bankrupt for all I care and purchased by new investors who will run it properly.

Before anyone defend these costs, just know that I'm not attacking Obama. Don't bend over backward to justify these expenses becuase you think Obama is doing a great job thus far. The Senate is my target here.

[shoe1985]

Preston, Preston, Preston, now is the perfect time to do these things. We are rebuilding our country, I guess we could call it rebuilding, and you implement these things during that time, now.

We can talk about going green forever, but that is it, just talk. Now, we are seeing someone pushing for this, and it happening. These are things for the future, not just now. These will create many jobs. I am for everything you listed, or rather the person that considers these pork.

I would rather us put money into making our federal buildings green, helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Oil is going to go back up, and then what? Then people will ask why we didn't go green?

[Preston_79]

Preston, Preston, Preston, now is the perfect time to do these things. We are rebuilding our country, I guess we could call it rebuilding, and you implement these things during that time, now.

We can talk about going green forever, but that is it, just talk. Now, we are seeing someone pushing for this, and it happening. These are things for the future, not just now. These will create many jobs. I am for everything you listed, or rather the person that considers these pork.

I would rather us put money into making our federal buildings green, helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Oil is going to go back up, and then what? Then people will ask why we didn't go green?

I want the whole world to be green. That's not the point. The money should be used wisely and I'm saying this isn't smart spending during a recession. How long will it take to see a return on our investments?

[Badbird]

With the exception of a few items on that list (hybrid cars ad a boat for the Coast Guard), all of those things are needed. It will take many years to complete, and people will be paid for working on them. Those are jobs, plain and simple.

I don't see the problem.

[shoe1985]

I want the whole world to be green. That's not the point. The money should be used wisely and I'm saying this isn't smart spending during a recession. How long will it take to see a return on our investments?

Well lets look at the things I mentioned:
Roads - These will begin getting repaired this Spring/Summer. The Secretary of Transportation has said they have many projects ready, most of which have been ready for a while there just wasn't enough money for them. So, we will see a return in very short time. You should see many people out working on the roads, which I am very happy about.

Schools - This will take a little longer to do, but we will see a return when your kids go to school, even your grandkids. This isn't about planning for now, but for the future. What is the point of fixing the problem now, if it will just come back a month from now? If we make schools more up-to-date, it will pay off for everyone, yes, everyone.

As for green - Think about the amount of money we are paying to heat the federal buildings in the winter or cooling them in the summer. Now just think of the reduced costs over time from making these buildings energy efficient.

I think I see where you are coming from though. You want a return now, but this isn't what the bill is setup to do. It is setup to get people back to work, and planning for the future. Most Republicans call this pork for many reasons: why do we need an education, why worry about the environment, and the roads are fine for my Hummer. No offense to any Republicans on here. My point, and probably the point Obama is saying, is we have to move towards the future, and this is our chance to do so. It wouldn't make sense to put these plans in motion when the economy is running great. Why go green? Gas is less than $2 a gallon. Education? I have my high school diploma, and I might good money, my kid will just follow in my footsteps. The roads just need a little patching. Get the point.

[Homyrrh]

$1 billion for NOAA? What?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Before anyone defend these costs, just know that I'm not attacking Obama. Don't bend over backward to justify these expenses becuase you think Obama is doing a great job thus far. The Senate is my target here.

Why is it that every time we criticize something ridiculous you've said, you assume it's because we're all blind followers of the President and his actions?

And I would like to know what the fuck is so wrong with all the projects that Sen. Coburn mentioned.

[Potter82]

With the exception of a few items on that list (hybrid cars ad a boat for the Coast Guard), all of those things are needed. It will take many years to complete, and people will be paid for working on them. Those are jobs, plain and simple.

I don't see the problem.


well according to the new RNC chairmen Michael Steele, they won't create jobs, they will create work. The distinction being that work is temporary. Yes, he actually did say this.

[Preston_79]

Why is it that every time we criticize something ridiculous you've said, you assume it's because we're all blind followers of the President and his actions?


Because I suspect some of you are.

Baaaaah!


Nothing personal.

[shoe1985]

Because I suspect some of you are.

Baaaaah!


Nothing personal.

I guess it could be that after 8 years of Bush, we are hoping for something positive?

well according to the new RNC chairmen Michael Steele, they won't create jobs, they will create work. The distinction being that work is temporary. Yes, he actually did say this.

Potter82, hate to burst your bubble, no I don't, most jobs are temporary. I am not sure if your post was positive or negative about the bill, just assuming, please make sure to let me know. In fact, we could say they all are. There is no proof that any job will be here tomorrow. These jobs will help people get back to earning an income, and spending money again. This in return will have employers hire more employees, allow people to create businesses again, and get us in the right direction. Once the roads are fixed, schools are remodeled, and buildings become green, the economy should be back on track, and jobs are hopefully back again.

I guess we could sit back, let the roads deteriorate even more, let are kids get dumber, and wait for oil to hit $150 again. Then people will say, "Why didn't we do things in the past to plan for the future?"

These jobs that will be created should last anywhere from 10-20 years. From other boards, where people live in every state, the roads are a disaster. The schools are falling apart.

People seem to think, not mentioning on here just general people, that Obama will snap his fingers and millions of jobs will be created. We won't see an impact till Spring/Summer. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Now, I do find it funny how all these Republicans are coming out saying how our grandkids will be paying for this deficit. My question for all of those people, and those here, where were you during the last 8 years? I have another question, what would you do to get the economy booming again, please explain, Preston this goes for you too, I would love to debate on this topic some more.

I am sure someone will mention tax cuts. Great idea, but didn't we have these, still do, for 8 years, and look where we are now. Plus, many businesses are hurting because nobody is buying, so, why would they hire if nobody is buying? Remember, this bill does have many tax cuts. Goodness, this bill has everything. Where is the pork?

[shoe1985]

Why is it that every time we criticize something ridiculous you've said, you assume it's because we're all blind followers of the President and his actions?

And I would like to know what the fuck is so wrong with all the projects that Sen. Coburn mentioned.

Exactly, the problem is that it is planning for the future. Changing how we do things.

Oh my god, he wants us to go green? That means we might be able to afford $4 for a gallon of gas when it hits that again, it will happen. He wants to make sure our children have the right education.

I didn't graduate high school, and I am doing fine. My child will just follow in my footsteps at the plant. Too bad the plant is being shipped overseas, and your child has no skill that will allow them the opportunity to find a quality job, at least they have Wal-Mart.

He wants to make all the federal buildings green? I like to bitch and moan that I am paying a lot of tax money heating these buildings, yet, I can't heat my own home. What, making them green would lower the costs of heating these buildings, and I would get more money in my paycheck because of this.

Stop living in the past people, and move towards the future. Times are changing, and you better be prepared. We are in a global economy, and if we don't change, China, Japan, India, and Mexico will continue to take our jobs. The good old days are gone, and now it is time to get back to work, and becoming a world leader again.

[Preston_79]

Analysis: Stimulus won't jump-start economy
By Jeannine Aversa / Associated Press
Posted: February 13, 2009



WASHINGTON -- No, the big stimulus plan won't "save or create 3.5 million jobs," as the president and congressional Democrats claim -- at least not this year.

The economy will remain feeble through 2009, analysts warn, and businesses will keep shedding jobs, though not as many as they would have without the $789 billion boost.
Advertisement

The stimulus agreement, heading for final votes in the next day or so, goes to the heart of President Barack Obama's strategy to revive the economy and will go far in shaping how Americans view his economic leadership.

What it won't do is quickly snap the country out of the painful recession, now in its second year.

It should provide some relief, economists say, though some argue it won't plow enough money into the economy to prop it up.

Tax cuts will spur at least some spending by consumers and businesses, and that should help save or create jobs. Aid flowing to cash-squeezed states will prevent some layoffs.

And money for big public works projects, such as bridge and road repairs, and longer-term ventures, such as networks for more high-speed Internet connections, eventually will generate jobs and stir economic activity.

But even with the stimulus, many economists predict a net loss of 2 million, 3 million or even more jobs this year. The recession already had cost 3.6 million jobs through January. The unemployment rate, now at 7.6 percent, the highest in more than 16 years, will probably hit at least 9 percent by next year.

"The stimulus package is not going to turn the economy around right now," said William Gale, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

"The best-case scenario is that it mitigates the depth and the severity of the downturn. That's not a bad thing. It's just not the magic bullet that fixes everything."

Some analysts say the job market won't return to normal health -- with unemployment hovering around 5 percent -- until as late as 2013.

And the broader economy? No sudden revival there either.

The economy is expected to slide backward for all of 2009 -- a decline in gross domestic product of more than 1 percent. That may not sound like much, but it would be the first yearly decline since 1991.

"Congress put the minimum charge into the stimulus battery," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight. "We're taking this big chance, turning the key and praying there is enough juice to turn over the economy. We should have juiced it up so much that we are guaranteed that this engine will start" through a bigger package of tax reductions.

This recession has proved especially stubborn and dangerous. The root causes -- housing, credit and financial crises -- are the worst since the 1930s and don't lend themselves to quick fixes.

The package includes Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax credit for 95 percent of workers. But negotiators scaled it back from Obama's campaign promise: to $400 a year for individuals, instead of his $500, and $800 for couples, down from his $1,000.

That equals around an extra $13 a week in most paychecks, and it should show up very quickly after Obama signs the bill. The hope is Americans will then feel more inclined to go out and buy, which would help bolster the economy.

But will recession-shocked consumers, spooked by vanishing jobs, shattered nest eggs, tanking home values and surging foreclosures, actually spend money?

"Chances are people are going to save much or most of the tax cuts because of the climate of uncertainty and doom and gloom," Gale said.

Given the severity of the problems, economists said, the bigger the economic revival package the better. Some said it needed to be $1 trillion to make a noticeable difference this year.

Others argued that the package should have been front-loaded with a lot more money -- at least $500 billion -- in tax cuts, which tend to act more quickly to boost economic activity.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com., estimates the bill will create just more than 2 million jobs by the end of 2010. The problem is, the recession will probably wipe out many more jobs than that. Zandi's prediction: 6.5 million jobs will disappear.

Absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

[shoe1985]

We could always follow the Republicans' attitude right now, sit and wait. Of course the amount of jobs lost would probably double or triple. I kind of wish the Repubs were in office right now. T"ax cut after tax cut, Palin, the tax cuts are not working, what should we do? John, lets build some more bridges to nowhere, that should get jobs created. Sarah, fantastic idea."

But, this post is quite funny. Like it has been said on here many times, these are jobs that will be created, not now, but in the Spring/Summer. Jobs that will last a long time, not forever, no job is around forever.

I think it is time for more people to create their own jobs. I have been hearing from a lot of people, "When are they going to create jobs?" Who is this they people keep talking about? People need to stop depending on others, take the tax cuts that allow for people to open new businesses, and take the risk. Stop depending on others, and depend on yourself.

[Homyrrh]

So...

Best-case scenario: more jobs, less inflation, etc., in a relatively soon timeframe

Worst-case scenario: Obama's Iraq

[Badbird]

well according to the new RNC chairmen Michael Steele, they won't create jobs, they will create work. The distinction being that work is temporary. Yes, he actually did say this.

Yeah, I saw that clip. My head exploded a little bit.

[hasselbrad]

Or there is the argument that building roads and bridges isn't creating jobs because those are temporary projects with an end date.
Unless it's in the state of Georgia... I-75 has been torn up in some fashion between Macon and the Florida state line for twenty fucking years.

When I see lists like this, I tend to think from the bottom up and see the opportunity for waste. Most of these projects probably will produce some jobs, but I tend to think that a lot of this money will simply be siphoned into budgets and squandered by bureaucrats. I used to work for a medical supply company in Florida, and we dealt with a lot of government agencies. It was a small company, but if these agencies dealt with all of their procurement in the same manner (which I'm sure they did) the waste of taxpayer dollars was/is staggering.
We weren't a minority owned company, so all of the supply business was taken away and funneled through one that was. They weren't local, however, so we still got all of the repair business. One of the services we provided was calibration of scales. Based on the price set by the agency for the service, they could have bought a new scale after just three calibrations. And, the calibration was something they could have easily done themselves, but because they had their government issued "P" card, they had a license to spend.
Likewise, at the end of every fiscal year, we would be inundated with calls from agencies that had "money to spend", and it didn't matter what they spent it on. Phone calls that would normally go "I need a case of ice packs and 50 boxes of bandaids" became "I have $500 to spend so it doesn't get cut from my budget... how many ice packs can I get for $500?" Well, what do you think happens to the five or six cases of ice packs that they really don't need? I have a pretty good idea that they "walk out" of whatever agency they were delivered to and wind up in coolers on fishing trips.

[countchocula]

Republicans are goofy. Pork accounts for LESS THAN 2% OF THE SPENDING BILL.

Preston, no one - not even liberals - expects the economy to snap back into shape overnight. I knew that it would take 3-5 years for the recession to cycle out. If Obama wasn't in the White House, it would take even longer.

[Preston_79]

Pork accounts for LESS THAN 2% OF THE SPENDING BILL.


Oh only 2%, is that all? It must not be that much money then. I like you're way of rationalizing.

I'll trade you two pennies for one nickle.

[Criminal Rock]

Well Preston, when there are people claiming the stimulus package is "full of earmarks" and "loaded with thousands of pet projects" even though by most estimates the budget for these projects are closer to 2% of the overall budget (http://mediamatters.org/items/200903100001?f=h_latest), it only makes sense to point out that fact when they misrepresenting the truth. What doesn't make sense, and what I have beef with the most, is how anyone can oppose a bill that could potentially help hundreds of thousands if not millions of people simply because 2% of it could possibly be going to waste.

[The Heart Collector]

Oh only 2%, is that all? It must not be that much money then. I like you're way of rationalizing



be honest: did you just incoherently mash your keyboard for a few straight seconds, and this is what came up?

[The Heart Collector]

i dont even understand exactly what you are criticizing.


"pork" projects or earmarks are just appropriating funds that have already been selected for spending federally. it is not new money that is being spent; it is money that is going to be spent, in this case targeted to a specific district project. if the earmarks weren't requested, the money would be used for other projects, just selected through different ways.

[The Heart Collector]

i dont even understand exactly what you are criticizing.


"pork" projects or earmarks are just appropriating funds that have already been selected for spending federally. it is not new money that is being spent; it is money that is going to be spent, in this case targeted to a specific district project. if the earmarks weren't requested, the money would be used for other projects, just selected through different ways.

as for the list you posted, it just straight up, point blank, says this is "wasteful" and not stimulative without any argument. your argument is also a ridiculous dismissal.

$2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions power plant in Mattoon, IL --> this builds or adds things to a power plant. 1) people have to build it and get paid for it. 2) it produces power.

• $39 billion slush fund for "state fiscal stabilization" bailout --> states can borrow some money, which is useful since they don't have money anymore.

• $5.5 billion for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for DHS HQ) --> this means groups of people (the ones who deal with this technologies) install new systems; the amount of work might mean these companies hire more people.

• $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities --> this means groups of people are paid to check or increase workplace safety, or the agency that does this gets more funding and is able to do more projects.

• $275 million for flood prevention --> this means groups of people are paid to do labor in flood prevention; it could also mean additional funding for whatever agency does flood prevention.

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation --> will be honest and say i don't know what this is for.

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries --> this specifically involves spending a shitload of money on products (demand for commodities being in need of increase right now) and involves paying people to install it. this is pretty much the definition of stimulus.

• $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program --> this is a coupon that people use in order to transition their tv systems. this means that, with a little help, peolpe might be available to spend the money to transition and this'll be helpful for demand. beyond that, this is a thing that the country has been in the process of doing, and its irresponsible to stop it.

• $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings --> this involves buying supplies for construction (demand) and puts construction companies to work. again, pretty much the definition of stimulus. these are the things that a stimulus bill is for: contracts that'll keep the private sector employed and keep demand up.

• $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings --> again, construction industry, materials industry, and in this case probably a bunch of new hires.

• $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshall's office buildings --> again, the exact definition of what stimulus is.

• $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings --> stimulus.

• $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities --> stimulus.

• $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners --> not stimulus, but considering the huge fucking problems mexico is having, and the absolutely misrable cost (10 million dollars, speaking in terms of government spending, is nothing) it might as well be done.

• $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for "science" at NASA) --> nasa gets funded. also, i don't understand why the word science is quoted.

• $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program --> who cleans those sites? could it be people that need jobs?

• $10 million for urban canals -->miserable amountof money.

• $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars --> a type of research and development that needs incentives, also again a very small amount of money.

• $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years) --> no idea.

• $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees --> what does this mean? from what i have heard in other sources, it means that vehicles that the government owns for transportation (of goods and supplies) need to be renewed every so often and there is a push to go for eco-friendly options. the way it is described here implies that it's a federal worker's personal vehicle or something.

• $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters --> so money that is used to hire architects, constructors, and to purchase computers, chairs, supplies, etc, all of which have to be installed. sounds like stimulus to me.

• $255 million for "priority procurements" at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker) --> no idea.

• $500 million for State and local fire stations --> there are hundreds of state and local fire stations in the country. considering the amount that might use these funds, the amount of money per station is probably small. so this isn't even a valid criticism from a "wow this number is big" standpoint.

• $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities --> again, construction, the most obvious type of stimulus. have to buy supplies, hire construction workers, electricians, designers, architects... so much shit.

• $500 million for wild land fire management --> yeah. so?

• $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service --> building shit, infrastructure, stimulus.

• $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs --> same.

• $650 million for abandoned mine sites --> no idea.

• $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution --> an institution needs funding. what do they use that funding for? pay employees, maintain their services, etc.

• $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth --> yes, the government often spends money on youth programs.

• $412 million for CDC headquarters --> cool, a building.

• $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD --> cool, another building. how stimulating?

• $160 million for "volunteers" at the Corp. for National and Community Service --> volunteers is quoted because they're probably actually getting paid, aka they are getting jobs.

• $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD --> money that can be used for employees, supplies, etc.

• $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico --> money that can be used for expenses, employees, etc.

• $850 million for Amtrak --> awesome, amtrak needs some money.





you obviously didn't even bother to read this list, just saw what that idiot tom coburn said and thought "great, this fits my preconceived notions of PORK being EVIL so i am going to post it". the majority of these projects are the exact definition of stimulus, the exact definition of what economists advocate should be done (spend money on things that directly employ people and spend money on supplies and goods). under no definition of stimulus do these things qualify as being wasteful and non-stimulating.

[Badbird]

Between this and the new Omnibus bill, the Republicans are crying foul, including John McCain, about bills being loaded with earmarks, full of pork, etc.

When as has been pointed out, earmarks only account for 1-2% of the total budget. And as THC pointed out, this shit is actually stuff that people need. AND on top of that, three of the top five earmark seekers are Republican. In fact, of the total earmark spending, Republicans account for about 40% of it - which is about the same number in the senate.

Oh, but it's so wasteful! Pork, pork, pork!

And you still hear Republican leaders throwing out the blatant LIE about the mag-lev train from LA to LV, yet the supposed "librul" media hasn't called them on it.

Whatever,

[countchocula]

Yeah, but the government's bad! They spend a lot of money!

[Preston_79]

You'll have to forgive me, I forget a democrat is in office so it's okay to waste billions of tax payer dollars. After all it's just 2% I know it's billions of dollars during a recession but relative to trillions it's really nothing. I won't hold Obama accountable for anything for at least his first term, it's all Bush's fault.

[Homyrrh]

Whether rife with pork or otherwise, the current administration dropped $787 billion of stimulus money, another in a $410 billion omnibus bill, and now Emperor Pelosi is already announcing plans for more stimulus more money (perhaps to get some more cupholders for her personal Air Force charters). Last October, the bailout package was dropped...universal healthcare...

It's just a lot of money.

[Badbird]

Uh, guess what? We always spend lots of money. Because we have lots of money.

And please point out the billions that are wasted in the list that Heat Collector provided.

[shoe1985]

Nobody has ever really complained this much about pork spending until now, I wonder why? Is it because a Democrat is in office and not a Republican? Until the recent elections, most people never heard of pork, besides the food of course.

[Homyrrh]

Uh, guess what? We always spend lots of money. Because we have lots of money.

And please point out the billions that are wasted in the list that Heat Collector provided.
Really? Lots of money?

I'm no economist, and assign a good portion of our fiscal crisis to the previous administration, but since we actually don't have this much money, it's just a bit troubling.

[shoe1985]

Really? Lots of money?

I'm no economist, and assign a good portion of our fiscal crisis to the previous administration, but since we actually don't have this much money, it's just a bit troubling.

We do have the money though, we have a printer press that makes it. Actually, the majority of these projects that the government makes is on credit. We are pretty much owned by China right, this was done to pay for the war. But, we do have the money, I don't get your statement that we don't? I think you are listening to too much Fox News. The money is always there. Look at California, considering to legalized pot, and this could solve a lot of their financial problems.

To raise the money the government can raise taxes, issue treasury bonds, or cut programs. There are many other things they can do to raise the money, but these are just a few things.

So, why was it ok for previous administrations, not just this last one, to have lots of pork in their bills, but now it is the worst thing ever? If McCain never mentioned it during the election, most Americans would have no clue what pork really is.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

According to CNN, out of the measly 2% of pork in this stimulus package, Republicans contribute about 40%. Right now the Senate has 99 members: 58 Democrats, 41 Republicans. Using basic math, and not looking at the actual dollars being put forth by each Senator, every Senator contributes somewhere around 1% of the earmark spending.

In other words, the only reason that earmarks are on the forefront of the spending issue is because it's the only thing that Republicans can possibly use to turn the American people against the stimulus package. That, and using terms like "socialism" in regards to anything that might be beneficial to every American, like health care.

No, most Americans don't care about pork. They care about their money being misused. I hear some of these Senators bitch and bitch about condoms in health centers and money for wildlife preservation, yet their cognitive dissonance allows them to defend some of their own bullshit spending projects as well as the excesses of unnecessary Pentagon spending.

There is a story behind every earmark. Granted, as unnecessary and unwholesome as many of them are, it's easy to make a useful and beneficial earmark (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears) sound like a waste of taxpayer money.

[countchocula]

You'll have to forgive me, I forget a democrat is in office so it's okay to waste billions of tax payer dollars. After all it's just 2% I know it's billions of dollars during a recession but relative to trillions it's really nothing. I won't hold Obama accountable for anything for at least his first term, it's all Bush's fault.

I can't take you seriously if you're not going to respond specifically to what I (and others) said. You have no argument.

You do realize that money is created out of thin air, right? You also realize that the Bush administration issued the same amount of pork, right? Right?

[The Heart Collector]

Preston, here is an item included in the list of wasteful things you posted.

"$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Can you explain to me in detail what is wasteful about this? Everything the government does costs money. Doing things tends to cost money. Having buildings tends to cost money. So "because it costs 110 million dollars" is not a good reason. Having to increase the deficit does not make it wasteful either. People regularly buy things using their credit cards and pay them off later, or ask for loans to buy houses. No one is seriously going to argue that something bought on credit is wasteful.

So what qualifies this project as wasteful? Do you have a particular distaste of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Do you think there shouldn't be a U.S. and Wildlife Service? Or that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is already funded enough, as is? (the entry says "construction", though it doesn't say facilities so I do not know if it is an additional building, or if it to construct the actual service since it might be small).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mainly devotes itself to conservation and protecting endangered species and stuff like that, from what I can see. That is its objective. So, since this is a "wasteful" project (and being paid in credit or costing money are not hallmarks of being a waste), why do you think it is wasteful? Are you just opposed to the notion of conservation and species protection? Or do you consider that currently the program is funded more than well-enough, therefore spending more on it is waste? If so, what are your sources?

What about this is so obviously, patently wasteful? We know that constructing a building employs people. We also know that this building (or agency, or whatever) is going to be full of employees, that will get paid to do services by the government. So there is some utility to the construction of the building and the management of the bureau.

So why is it wasteful, then? Is it taking resources away from elsewhere? Are there a million construction projects that might produce more economic and social gain that are being crowded out by this Wildlife thing? Are there a lot of people working for this bureau that are being kept away from lucrative, economy-boosting private-sector animal preservation positions?

[The Heart Collector]

Whether rife with pork or otherwise, the current administration dropped $787 billion of stimulus money, another in a $410 billion omnibus bill, and now Emperor Pelosi is already announcing plans for more stimulus more money (perhaps to get some more cupholders for her personal Air Force charters). Last October, the bailout package was dropped...universal healthcare...

It's just a lot of money.

You are right. It is a lot of money, and it is problematic. Fortunately, Obama seems to realize this and wants to raise taxes within two-three years in order to start reducing the deficit (plus stop war spending).

There are two important things to understand. One, everyone needs to reduce their debt. Everyone being the American government, the private sector, and households. Two, the process of reducing debt, saving, and deleveraging right now is creating serious problems.

The government has an advantage over the private sector and the average civilian, which is that it can postpone that debt payment for longer, and can increase its income (by taxing you, or privatizing things).

Luckily, the American government has more ways to spend, and more ways to finance its spending, so it should do some spending while everyone else gets their shit together.

[Homyrrh]

Preston, here is an item included in the list of wasteful things you posted.

"$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Can you explain to me in detail what is wasteful about this? Everything the government does costs money. Doing things tends to cost money. Having buildings tends to cost money. So "because it costs 110 million dollars" is not a good reason. Having to increase the deficit does not make it wasteful either. People regularly buy things using their credit cards and pay them off later, or ask for loans to buy houses. No one is seriously going to argue that something bought on credit is wasteful.

So what qualifies this project as wasteful? Do you have a particular distaste of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Do you think there shouldn't be a U.S. and Wildlife Service? Or that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is already funded enough, as is? (the entry says "construction", though it doesn't say facilities so I do not know if it is an additional building, or if it to construct the actual service since it might be small).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mainly devotes itself to conservation and protecting endangered species and stuff like that, from what I can see. That is its objective. So, since this is a "wasteful" project (and being paid in credit or costing money are not hallmarks of being a waste), why do you think it is wasteful? Are you just opposed to the notion of conservation and species protection? Or do you consider that currently the program is funded more than well-enough, therefore spending more on it is waste? If so, what are your sources?

What about this is so obviously, patently wasteful? We know that constructing a building employs people. We also know that this building (or agency, or whatever) is going to be full of employees, that will get paid to do services by the government. So there is some utility to the construction of the building and the management of the bureau.

So why is it wasteful, then? Is it taking resources away from elsewhere? Are there a million construction projects that might produce more economic and social gain that are being crowded out by this Wildlife thing? Are there a lot of people working for this bureau that are being kept away from lucrative, economy-boosting private-sector animal preservation positions?
This isn't park, but what criteria decides this figure? $110 would seem much more reasonable were there not a raging recession. If this were split to $70 million or so, along with a lot of other worthy causes that may be getting a lot of cash, the total stimulus package amount may have been able to accomplish the same objective with half the amount.

[Preston_79]

I can't take you seriously if you're not going to respond specifically to what I (and others) said. You have no argument.

You do realize that money is created out of thin air, right? You also realize that the Bush administration issued the same amount of pork, right? Right?


I know this will shock you, but it was wrong when the Bush administration allowed it and it's wrong for the Obama administration to allow it to continue. Sorry I can't play Republican for you and say it was alright when Bush did it, but it's bad when a Democrat does it.

I'm not a polarized Republican, and I'm not a Democratic sheep either.

[countchocula]

Cool. Neither am I. You still haven't addressed any actual points that have been made. You can't just counter with, "it's wrong."

Jesus, this is hopeless.

[shoe1985]

I am curious, since we don't believe we should do thse projects, when should we do them? Should we invest in energy when gas is say $2 a gallon? Even now, people don't care how many mpg their vehicle gets because gas is so low.

When should we invest in revamping our education system? We are falling behind everyone else, and losing jobs because of it. Maybe we should wait until we have no jobs and do it.

See, now is the perfect time to do these things. Materials will be cheap, labor also because people need jobs. We are building for the future, meaning that down the road, it will be one less worry.

So Homyrrhm, when should we implement these programs? We had such awesome, fake, growth during the Bush years, but instead of pushing for improving education, he pushed for more funding to go towards overseas and rebuilding another country.

How does giving tax cuts fix the problems we have at hand? How will giving tax cuts fix the roads? How will tax cuts fix the failing schools because they don't have the necessary technology to give our children the right education? How does giving tax cuts help our energy problem?

As for a raging recession, this seems like a shocker to me anymore. In my opinion, business is better now than it was during the holidays. The stores are packed, people are buying with their carts full. Everywhere I got, it is like this. Whether it be at retail shops or restaurants, you would not believe we are in a recession. But, there is a lot of work to be done in this state, PA, on the roads, schools, and fixing our energy problem.

[Preston_79]

You can't just counter with, "it's wrong."

Jesus, this is hopeless.


And yet I did.


If these pork projects can't get passed on their own merit they shouldn't be attached to a larger more important bill just so they will. This is what's happening and It's bullshit. It was b.s when a Republican was president and it hasn't changed even with Obama as president.


What's hopeless is the amount of people who are willing to give Obama a blank check because they believe he's a president unlike any we've had before. This is supposed to be the most transparent administration and so far it's just a run of the mill administration. Obama is a black man that's the only change I see. I'm glad to so many in this country are blindly optimistic about Obama, but I'll remain cautious and critical like I am of any administration.

Now go on and be good little sheep.

[someguy]

Preston, how about instead of pulling out the 'pork is wrong no matter what' card about this bill why don't you respond to the points brought up that say these 'earmarks' aren't exactly wasteful at all considering the intention of the bill?

[The Heart Collector]

If these pork projects can't get passed on their own merit they shouldn't be attached to a larger more important bill just so they will. This is what's happening and It's bullshit. It was b.s when a Republican was president and it hasn't changed even with Obama as president.

This makes no sense at all. Projects don't pass through congress on their own merit. They pass through Congress because of political deal-making. The notion that we should use "congress passing them on their" as a benchmark for whether a project is good or not is nonsensical.

[The Heart Collector]

This isn't park, but what criteria decides this figure? $110 would seem much more reasonable were there not a raging recession. If this were split to $70 million or so, along with a lot of other worthy causes that may be getting a lot of cash, the total stimulus package amount may have been able to accomplish the same objective with half the amount.

I can't make any sense out of this post. The result of this recession is plunging asset values affecting the financial system and dropping consumer demand. That does not mean the government should have a tighter wallet. So I am not sure why you say that "were there not a raging recession" this would be a good idea. If the country was in a recession because the government borrowed too much money, then yes, maybe it would be a bad idea to continue to borrow money. But that is not why we are in a recession.

As I mentioned before, some spending has to be done to offset the damage, especially in a country like the U.S. where the welfare state is not that strong. The government is in a better position to maneuver around debt and income than the private sector or households.

[Homyrrh]

I can't make any sense out of this post. The result of this recession is plunging asset values affecting the financial system and dropping consumer demand. That does not mean the government should have a tighter wallet. So I am not sure why you say that "were there not a raging recession" this would be a good idea. If the country was in a recession because the government borrowed too much money, then yes, maybe it would be a bad idea to continue to borrow money. But that is not why we are in a recession.

As I mentioned before, some spending has to be done to offset the damage, especially in a country like the U.S. where the welfare state is not that strong. The government is in a better position to maneuver around debt and income than the private sector or households.
I've agreed that economic stimulation is necessary, but I wish to convey that I cannot comprehend the usefulness or benefit of such extravagant spending. The national debt has been recklessly increased by recent administrations, and simply minting new bills to cover these trillions of dollars we don't actually is not without dire consequences (primarily, astronomical inflation...I reference history). If the government doesn't spend $110 million on the parks department (obviously our mutual example), and instead elects to invest $65 million into ranger jobs, research positions, and materials purchases from other companies, the ultimate effect of that $65 million is that it actually becomes an investment; with these large increases in employment, there are obvious benefits.

However, I cannot be convinced by the current administration, or Congress, that the enormity of this package, with so many trillions and apparently even counting, is good for more than just today's economy. Between this and the bailout and that recent Omnibus bill and the next stimulus-in-the-works and with the president's intent to institute some form of universal healthcare, I'm genuinely alarmed at the consequences of such spending. Regardless of exactly why we are in a recession, drawing more bills and throwing it at arbitrary industries cannot be the final solution.

And on that other note, indeed, most legislation is passed via backroom bartering and not on integrity or merit.

[Preston_79]

Preston, how about instead of pulling out the 'pork is wrong no matter what' card about this bill why don't you respond to the points brought up that say these 'earmarks' aren't exactly wasteful at all considering the intention of the bill?

If these earmarks are so important pass them on there own merit. That's all I'm saying. I would agree that they're not wasteful in many examples, but there just not a top priority or they could pass in their own bill. That's why these earmarks are so underhanded. They sneak them in knowing they'll get passed because the president doesn't want to stall the stimulus package. He can veto the bill and send it back, but it will waste more time, and it will come back with earmarks again.

110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. How could that be a bad thing? Well maybe if it were in it's own bill congress would looking at it with more scrutiny and decides 110 is too much that it should be 50 million during these hard times. They won't do this as an earmark though. Obama's not going to veto an entire stimulus package because of one earmark.

Hey congress put in an earmark that gives me a few million. I'll spend it and stimulate the economy. I promise I won't waste it. It's just a few million, that not even .1% of the stimulus package. You guys would have nothing wrong with that right?

[Preston_79]

For your further enlightenment

Pledge to curb earmarks falls short
By FROMA HARROP
March 12, 2009, 8:32PM


President Obama has vowed to curb the number of earmarks, also known as pork, in future spending bills.

A commendable promise, had his number been zero. Unfortunately, the president wants to deal with an unsavory dish by cutting the portion size.

Earmarks are pet projects that lawmakers stuff into spending bills. There are 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill about which Obama gave his pork talk on Wednesday.

Democratic leaders are right that “this is last year’s business.” And it’s true that earmarks made up less than 2 percent of the $410 billion spending bill.

But earmark spending is not only about money. It is about enabling fundamentally corrupt practices in the budgeting process. Too often the following happens:

Member of Congress obtains pork for a group or business. The recipient returns some of it in the form of campaign cash or, in at least one case, antiques for the home. Former Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, was famously brought down by a bribe-for-earmark scandal including Persian rugs.

The FBI is now investigating PMA Group on suspicions of making phony campaign donations to select representatives. Rep. John Murtha has received generous contributions from the employees of PMA, a lobbying firm whose clients have enjoyed earmarks, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likes the status quo on pork. Waving the flag of American security, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat recently told The Washington Post that defense-related earmarks “improve critical national defense programs.”

No, they don’t. Every defense-related earmark goes to something the Defense Department didn’t ask for — and is usually directed to some contractor back in the district. That money could have gone to actually enhancing national security.

Obama’s call for still greater transparency on earmarking is a useless gesture. Most lawmakers are darn proud of them. They list the bacon they’ve bagged for their constituents right on their Web sites.

Some portray earmarks as a beautiful exercise in democracy and ask, “Why should unelected officials make decisions?” Frankly, I’d rather have an unelected general in the Pentagon allocate defense dollars than a politician raking in campaign cash from a local defense contractor.

“Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose,” Obama said. That is true, and many do. But the worthy ones can be part of a rational budgeting process.

A regrettable offshoot of the debate is that good ideas get ridiculed because they are earmarks. Great fun has been made of the earmark for swine odor and manure management in Iowa. Actually, those are very serious concerns in a state that has nearly seven hogs for every human.

We had a good laugh over the earmark for studying catfish genetics in Alabama. But Alabama has 250 commercial fish farmers for whom catfish is by far the dominant species.

And there was a big har-har-har about the earmark for grape genetics research in New York state. New York happens to be home to a large winemaking industry. (“Quick, peel me a grape,” twittered Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a longtime foe of earmarks.)

Why are earmarks getting so much attention now? Three reasons: (1) They are easy to understand. (2) The public links the current economic fiasco to a “bought government” for which earmarks are one form of currency. (3) With trillions now going out the door for bailouts and economic stimuli, Americans feel they have an enormous stake in clean budgeting.

If Washington can’t end a tawdry system that involves relatively small amounts of money, what hope is there for reforming the big stuff?

Cutting the number of earmarks to zero shouldn’t be that hard — and should be this year’s business.

[countchocula]

If these earmarks are so important pass them on there own merit.

If most of these "earmarks" could actually stimulate the economy, then why cut them out of a stimulus package? Just because someone coined the term "pork" and the term "pork" just happens to sound corrupt? Society is conditioned to associate such terms with images of penurious businessmen drinking the blood of babies.

You seem to have fallen for GOB tactics that feast on the oversimplistic minds of Fox News viewers.

Republican On TV: "They spent $110 million dollars!"
Viewer: "Goddamn, that's a big number!"

Preston, you have to put it in perspective. $110 million is nothing. Literally. All of this money we're talking about doesn't even exist. It's a figure on a screen.

[Preston_79]

If most of these "earmarks" could actually stimulate the economy, then why cut them out of a stimulus package? Just because someone coined the term "pork" and the term "pork" just happens to sound corrupt? Society is conditioned to associate such terms with images of penurious businessmen drinking the blood of babies.

You seem to have fallen for GOB tactics that feast on the oversimplistic minds of Fox News viewers.

Republican On TV: "They spent $110 million dollars!"
Viewer: "Goddamn, that's a big number!"

Preston, you have to put it in perspective. $110 million is nothing. Literally. All of this money we're talking about doesn't even exist. It's a figure on a screen.


I say society has been conditioned to not understand the value of a dollar, To the point where 110 million is nothing. They think money is just something that can be printed and solve our problems. It's just figures on a screen. Talk about over simplistic. You should stop watching Fox news.

[countchocula]

*insert patronizing smiley here*

You don't know anything about the world's currency. You probably think there's a big vault somewhere where government officials drag money out by the truckload.

[Preston_79]

*insert patronizing smiley here*

You don't know anything about the world's currency. You probably think there's a big vault somewhere where government officials drag money out by the truckload.

This coming from the person who said it's just figures on a screen. You also don't seem to understand how these earmarks can be abused and have been abused by corruption.

Being patronizing and making these pointless character assumptions won't strengthen your argument, of course you know this. If you're done then I suggest you just leave it be. Making jabs might improve your self esteem, but they don't make you right.

[countchocula]

Dude, 90% of all of the money in the world DOESN'T EXIST in physical form. It's all in computers. The World Bank literally creates money out of nothing. The $110 million we're talking about would not have been used for something else but for the spending bill. It's not being taken out of someone's wallet. Money can be created any time it needs to be created.

Do you think that the world is running out of money like it's a natural resource?

[Preston_79]

Dude, 90% of all of the money in the world DOESN'T EXIST in physical form. It's all in computers. The World Bank literally creates money out of nothing. The $110 million we're talking about would not have been used for something else but for the spending bill. It's not being taken out of someone's wallet. Money can be created any time it needs to be created.

Do you think that the world is running out of money like it's a natural resource?


I can't believe you have the gull to tell me I don't understand world currency and you type something like this.

Hey why doesn't the government just print us all out some money and make everyone rich? Oh wait that would devalue our dollar till it was worthless. Fuck it, if the dollar loses some value we'll just print even more.

I say we print 500 million and give it to orphanages. Who would argue with that. We'll print one billion for each state for classroom text books. Hmmm, another Billion, no, trillion dollars for free housing for low income single mothers. Damn this economic recovery is easy.

I'm convinced. You're right, money can be printed any time when it's needed. There's nothing more to argue about. You win. All retreat in defeat. Well done sir.

[hasselbrad]

I can't believe you have the gull to tell me I don't understand world currency and you type something like this.

Hey why doesn't the government just print us all out some money and make everyone rich? Oh wait that would devalue our dollar till it was worthless. Fuck it, if the dollar loses some value we'll just print even more.

I say we print 500 million and give it to orphanages. Who would argue with that. We'll print one billion for each state for classroom text books. Hmmm, another Billion, no, trillion dollars for free housing for low income single mothers. Damn this economic recovery is easy.

I'm convinced. You're right, money can be printed any time when it's needed. There's nothing more to argue about. You win. All retreat in defeat. Well done sir.

Substitute Deutschmark for Dollar and you have the economic formula that caused inflation that literally put a loaf of bread out of reach for Germans in the 1920s.

[Homyrrh]

Substitute Deutschmark for Dollar and you have the economic formula that caused inflation that literally put a loaf of bread out of reach for Germans in the 1920s.
As well as a world war.

I'd have to say Preston has the hand here.

[shoe1985]

Do you think an earmark like something to do with trains will pass on its own? It is not going to benefit all the states, and most will consider it stupid to invest in one when it won't benefit them. Take the Amtrack train that will be getting a lot of money from the stimulus bill, it was said that if they were to go under, there would be a need of at least 7 extra lanes on the highways to cover the amount of congestion that would build up.

Things don't pass on their own because they won't benefit everyone equally, which is why many call them an earmark. An earmark to you or me might be a treasure to someone else.

[countchocula]

I can't believe you have the gull to tell me I don't understand world currency and you type something like this.

Hey why doesn't the government just print us all out some money and make everyone rich? Oh wait that would devalue our dollar till it was worthless. Fuck it, if the dollar loses some value we'll just print even more.

I say we print 500 million and give it to orphanages. Who would argue with that. We'll print one billion for each state for classroom text books. Hmmm, another Billion, no, trillion dollars for free housing for low income single mothers. Damn this economic recovery is easy.

I'm convinced. You're right, money can be printed any time when it's needed. There's nothing more to argue about. You win. All retreat in defeat. Well done sir.

First off, drop the "17-year-old girl" sarcasm. Secondly, I only meant to point out that - in the grand scope of things - these earmarks are, for the most part, inconsequential. The government is going to waste money every once in awhile. That's just life. It's not Obama's fault, and he has yet to contradict himself. While in office, he has followed through with several promises he made on the campaign trail. He is doing what he said he would do. No administration has ever been perfect, and if earmark spending goes down as one of Obama's greatest missteps, we don't have much to worry about.

[Preston_79]

First off, drop the "17-year-old girl" sarcasm. Secondly, I only meant to point out that - in the grand scope of things - these earmarks are, for the most part, inconsequential. The government is going to waste money every once in awhile. That's just life. It's not Obama's fault, and he has yet to contradict himself. While in office, he has followed through with several promises he made on the campaign trail. He is doing what he said he would do. No administration has ever been perfect, and if earmark spending goes down as one of Obama's greatest missteps, we don't have much to worry about.



my inner 17 year old girl has something she'd like to say
http://www.geocities.com/mo_spb/images/070901/yulia_begging.jpgSORRY

[countchocula]

Your reply has met my expectations.

[someguy]

You might as well just ignore him count. The Heart Collector has made plenty of good points against what Preston is snarking on about but unsurprisingly he prefers to pick and choose his arguments.

[Preston_79]

I've see this before somewhere.


Just don't pull down the rack of sunglasses on your way out.

[countchocula]

http://ywhealth.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/girl_on_computer1_21.jpg

[someguy]

I've see this before somewhere.


Just don't pull down the rack of sunglasses on your way out.

JohnTheHenchman, is that you?

[Homyrrh]

Why don't we just...move onto another thread. This is painful to read.

[shoe1985]

Why don't we just...move onto another thread. This is painful to read.

I agree. This thread has shown that you have some people who are fine with earmarks, and see them as they are, and others who feel they are wrong. It is all opinion, and sometimes they drag on and instead of creating debate, we go into, "I am right, you are wrong," talk. I have no issue with earmarks, and feel they benefit someone, maybe not me or you, but they benefit someone, so, I have no problem with them. Some people won't agree, but oh well, that is life.