Pork bill that was part of old Iraq bill passes with veto proof 300+ votes

Thorgrim · 05-11-2007, 08:04 AM

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll336.xml

You guys don't understand (some of you) supplemental bills are MEANT to deal with financial problems that pop up during the year that normal budget don't deal with...

Pick any example...like the peanut farmers...well they were set on GOP passed federal grants to help with things like storage, with financial problems hitting them hard and the money suddenly disappeared, thousands of jobs were at risk...no laughing matter, you are not better than a peanut farmer, and if you were one you'd be jumping up and down asking for help because there's no way you can turn a profit, and we can't just ship more jobs overseas

I think even Ballz backed the Spinach aid because of the crisis that hit them, almost all of it is like that, there are severe problems that need straight up money, these are not "bridges to nowhere" they are relief to help sustain the US businesses...we bailed out the airlines there's no reason we should laugh at spinach farmers

Anyway, hopefully they get 67 votes in the Senate on a mirror bill and thats over

The Iraq part barely based as a seperate bill
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll333.xml

And Bush is threatening a veto...no compromise whatsoever offered...I hope he vetoes it, they should have sent the same bill back, maybe now they'll send the old one back without the pork since it just passed with a veto-proof majority in the House

No more cheap shots about "buying votes" this time...this bill, and the next ones, will be 100% non-pork related

7th Ninjai · 05-11-2007, 10:10 AM

Why should the US government pick and choose which industries get federal aid in the event of a disaster or economic downturn? I certainly do not expect (or count on) the federal government running to my aid if my wife's office burns to the ground and we can no longer rely on income from her business. Why should peanut farmers or spinach farmers get my tax dollars and protection the government would never give to us?

Financial aid is wealth redistribution to buy votes. That's all.

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 11:57 AM

I think we should help who needs it. I understand the problems the spinach and peanut farmers face. I just want the bills to be seperate. Military spending to be military spending. Farmer aid to be farmer aid. Let them be voted on their own merits. I think it is borderline unethical to have unrelated spending on bills like money for our soldiers.

motivez · 05-11-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think we should help who needs it. I understand the problems the spinach and peanut farmers face.

So should the Federal Government help EVERY business or industry that isn't doing well? What if CD sales tank because of the rise of mp3's, should they give the RIAA etc money?

Originally Posted by DosEquius

I just want the bills to be seperate. Military spending to be military spending. Farmer aid to be farmer aid. Let them be voted on their own merits. I think it is borderline unethical to have unrelated spending on bills like money for our soldiers.

I agree with this, bills should not contain unrelated spending in them.. it was bullshit when the GOP added something about drilling in Alaska to a military spending bill, and it's bullshit when the Democrats try something similar.

I can't support it just because I agree with their ultimate goal

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So should the Federal Government help EVERY business or industry that isn't doing well? What if CD sales tank because of the rise of mp3's, should they give the RIAA etc money?

No, they should not just help no matter what. We need to look at the circumstances behind why they are having a problem. If it is because competition is taking them down, then no we should not help them. If they have bad business practices or corrupt leaders that send their company to bankruptcy, then no we should not help them.

If a severe drought hits Iowa, then we should have some aid to allow the corn farmers to get by for the season. That way next year they can pump out some corn for us and we can continue to feed cattle and ourselves.

Thorgrim · 05-11-2007, 02:40 PM

First: They did seperate the bills...this bill has nothing to do with Iraq money, you said it was BS, I disagreed but at the end of the day they seperated it, you should be giving them props

Dos:
Great point, if a state is hit with a financial disaster that threatens to destroy an industry, and it is likely no one else will pick it up (really who wants to take up unprofitable peanut farming? which is what would happen)

However, if the CD-companies went in to trouble, there are millions of people who would be falling over each other to get a piece of the industry...the example doesn't fit

Every year businesses go bankrupt and families get ruined, we don't come close to helping them all, but when it affects industries that really have no recourse and need a helping hand until they can get on their feet...that's the whole idea behind liberal economics, don't ship all our peanut farmers to China, keep industries around unless there is a better industry that would take its place in that area

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

Why should the US government pick and choose which industries get federal aid in the event of a disaster or economic downturn? I certainly do not expect (or count on) the federal government running to my aid if my wife's office burns to the ground and we can no longer rely on income from her business. Why should peanut farmers or spinach farmers get my tax dollars and protection the government would never give to us?

Financial aid is wealth redistribution to buy votes. That's all.

There really is no end in site is there? Every member of the House and Senate complains about high taxes but works as hard as possible to bring back as much into their own district or State.

The Constitution says the government should "promote" the "general" welfare. That should be a guideline. When it gets too specific and takes from one to benefit another the government has strayed. Robert Bird once bragged about how his State gets far more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes. Now multiply that times the entire congress and you see what we have going for us tax paying citizens.

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So should the Federal Government help EVERY business or industry that isn't doing well? What if CD sales tank because of the rise of mp3's, should they give the RIAA etc money?

Most of you kids are too young to rememeber, but the Chrysler bailout was a mistake. Sure it saved jobs, but in a free market those people could have gone to work for other auto companies that did not screw up as much as Chrysler. You can't tell me that without that company people would have bought less cars.

And the Japanese!

Now they build the American sold cars right here and employ Americans all over the country. Protectionism and handouts gives you France and young people rioting over government spoils!

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There really is no end in site is there? Every member of the House and Senate complains about high taxes but works as hard as possible to bring back as much into their own district or State.

The Constitution says the government should "promote" the "general" welfare. That should be a guideline. When it gets too specific and takes from one to benefit another the government has strayed. Robert Bird once bragged about how his State gets far more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes. Now multiply that times the entire congress and you see what we have going for us tax paying citizens.

FYI,

It is generally red states that get more in federal money than they pay in. I think dpakman has a map on his site that shows it. I'd try to link you but when i go there now my work filter thinks it is a gambling site and blocks it

RMNIXON · 05-11-2007, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

FYI,

It is generally red states that get more in federal money than they pay in. I think dpakman has a map on his site that shows it. I'd try to link you but when i go there now my work filter thinks it is a gambling site and blocks it

I posted "every member" but did use Byrd as an example as Chairman of Appropriations. I am not picking on any party as they both do this in their own way.

DosEquis · 05-11-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I posted "every member" but did use Byrd as an example as Chairman of Appropriations. I am not picking on any party as they both do this in their own way.

Right, but is it not hypocritical for the "conservatives"? They always advocate for lower spending and lower taxes, unless the spending doesn't come to their state. It has been that way since 1980.