MDM4AU 332 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Pelosi recently claimed, “There`s a new Congress in town.†Doesn’t look like it to me. She and her congressional colleagues passed the "emergency war spending" bill, 51-47. This thing is so full of pork, I’m surprised Keith Ellison (D-MN) would even step foot into the chambers of congress. Bush claims he will veto it. Don’t be surprised when the looney left attacks him for not supporting the troops and giving them the funding they need. Now, more of their time, more of our tax dollars going to be spent on trying to override the president`s veto while our troops wait on the things they need. This could have been avoided but, nooooo, the Dems wanted to play politics with this. The Democrats weren’t elected because they are so liberal. America was not clamoring for more "cash hemorrhaging." America was tired of being screwed when it came to the Republicans' reckless spending. Not too long ago Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton were screaming, "Earmark Reform!" Now that Democrats have embraced the politics as usual of pork and spend, how long before they start raising our taxes? Bet on it. They will try to raise the Social Security cap, raise dividend and cap gains taxes, they'll probably try to put more tax on yo 401K, and they will do what they can to revive the Death tax and make it even stronger. It is apparent that the only change in congress back in November was the letter before the crooks name in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.a...=&sExpire=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Question: Has anyone actually read the text of the Senate or House bills? or are you assuming that all of the "pork" is there just b/c Fox News says it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 332 Posted April 1, 2007 Author Share Posted April 1, 2007 Question: Has anyone actually read the text of the Senate or House bills? or are you assuming that all of the "pork" is there just b/c Fox News says it is? There it is gang. Typical talking points from the left about Fox News assuming that is our only source for news since we disagree with them. Sorry to disappoint you, but I got nothing from Fox News. Here are a couple of the links I have: Washington Times Washington Post I'll show you more if you would like... Even a paper I despise, The LA Times said this: The war spending bill passed by the House on Friday is officially called the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. ... President Bush asked for $103 billion for expenses related to fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He got that and more: not only a series of deadlines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but also $21 billion in additional spending, much of it unrelated to war. I guess I was wrong in thinking they are always wrong. And in record time, Harry Reid had this to say on CNN (proving my point): “If the president vetoes this bill, it is an asterisk in history,†... “He sets the record for undermining the troops more than any president we have ever had.†I realize it is not "all pork" but to say it is all needed is laughable. The worst part is that this was attached to a "War Appropriations " bill. And it was placed in there for political reasons. But, hey...what does a guy from Alabama know. You work in the beltway. Enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 332 Posted April 5, 2007 Author Share Posted April 5, 2007 Can anyone explain with a straight face how this is perfectly ok? Is there anyone on here that is glad the bill was presented this way or feel it was the right way to getit done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I'm ready for a bill that makes it illegal to attach unrelated spending projects to bills. Both sides do it and I'm sick of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I do agree that the supporters of the bill damaged their case vis-a-vis withdrawal from Iraq by loading on various pork projects. They would have had a cleaner fight and probably more public support if they had included the withdrawal language without muddying the waters with a pork debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,036 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I'm ready for a bill that makes it illegal to attach unrelated spending projects to bills. Both sides do it and I'm sick of it. I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUdaREALsecTigers 2 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I do agree that the supporters of the bill damaged their case vis-a-vis withdrawal from Iraq by loading on various pork projects. They would have had a cleaner fight and probably more public support if they had included the withdrawal language without muddying the waters with a pork debate. They had to include the pork to buy the votes needed for the bill to pass. This was a complete waste of time and more showboating by the dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.