Big-spending Republicans

[DeseoUnTaco]

W's latest triumph is disgusting. They're spending almost a billion dollars building highways in Alaska. They're building massive bridges from nowhere to nowhere in the wilds of Alaska.

This is one of the most pork-ladden bills I can ever remember. Why does anyone, from any party, tolerate this? We're all paying the bill for it.

 

[CZ-100]

It is truly disgusting!

The government is really starting to Piss me off.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Because the US government has grown to the point that those in it are destroying it by feeding from it. It seems like everyone there is there alone to make sure as much of the federal pie gets sent home to those that put them into office. If anyone thinks that either party is for a reduction of the federal government, they are fooling themselves.

 

[wingman]

Once again GREED, large corporation now have complete control of our country, most in my opinion don't care what happens to America they are
concerned about the bottom line not the future of the citizens of this
great country, pessimistic for sure but after seeing 60 plus years of a continued loss of freedom and a lack of concern on the part of our government tough for me to feel otherwise.

 

[R.H. Lee]

The Republican party is a disgrace and an insult to every one of us who voted them into office. A billion dollars. Isn’t that about a months worth of the never ending Iraq ‘war’? Both parties consistently demonstrate utter contempt for the American people whom they are supposed to represent. These whores don’t represent anyone but themselves.

This entire practice of tacking pork onto legislation in order to maintain incumbency is self serving, reprehensible, irresponsible, and arrogant to the max. Who the hell is gonna be able to use these highways with gasoline approaching $3 a gallon?

 

[sumpnz]

Who the hell is gonna be able to use these highways with gasoline approaching $3 a gallon?

People will pay whatever they have to for gas. It could be $15/gal and people would still buy it. They'd just make adjustments in other areas of their life. Instead of that big hurkin SUV, they'll drive a mini-van or wagon. Instead of the full size car they'll drive a lightweight compact. Instead of buying that 3500sf 5 bedroom house in the gated community so each kid can have their own room plus have a guest room and an office, they'll buy a 2500sf 4 bed room house in a normal neighborhood and ditch the seperate office and make the guest room do double duty, and maybe have 2 of the kids share a room. Or rent a 1200sf 3 bedroom duplex on the other side of the tracks, make all the kids share a room, screw the guest room, and eat a lot more potatoes. You get the drift.

 

[Flyboy]

I'm just waiting for Rebar to come in here and tell us all why this is a good thing because the Republicans did it, and we should all go out and vote for them next time around to reward them for this kind of behavior.

 

[Preacherman]

Actually, I don't think that pork-barrel spending is a Republican monopoly by any means. I suspect that if the Democrats took over tomorrow, the amount of pork would remain the same, or even grow. However, I agree that whichever party is responsible, it's no less disgusting.

 

[beerslurpy]

Am I the only one that thinks this is reprehensible but pretty much invisible next to the Iraq mess that no one seems to talk about much any more. We spend that much every 2 months I think.

The worst thing is that they arent even spending tax dollars anymore. They just print more treasury bonds. Its gonna suck if anyone ever wants their 8 trillion back. I sure hope they have a plan for when we run out of money to pay off the interest.

 

[longeyes]

While our politicos dispense the pork, the Chinese are cooking it. All of this is going to end badly.

 

[RevDisk]

$286.4 billion ?

As in, which a B? Dang. That could have funded an entire invasion of a small to medium sized country for a decade. Even with KBR's graft.

Seriously, tho. All these new highways... where's the land gonna come from? Me thinks emminent domain will rear its ugly head. How much do you wish to bet a very large amount of private land will be "bought" at gunpoint for pennies on the dollar? Except for those whom are well connected to the Powers That Be, who will receive dollars on the penny.


Soon enough no one will be able to afford to drive on said highways. I remember, what? Two, three years ago gas being around a $1. I see $2.50 a gallon all the time. Sometimes as low as $2.25, sometimes as high as circa $2.65. About $1.50 jump in two or three years. In two or three years, gas prices hitting $4.00? Ouch. That will throw a spike into our economy.

People will pay whatever they have to for gas. It could be $15/gal and people would still buy it. They'd just make adjustments in other areas of their life. Instead of that big hurkin SUV, they'll drive a mini-van or wagon.

I'm sure you are mostly being sarcastic.

Ah, people usually do think of oil just in terms of gas for their car. Not completely true. A barrel of crude oil is cracked into many different products. From tar and asphalt to gasoline and kerosone. Plastics come from oil. Glance around you and see how many products within your line of sight are completely or partially plastic.

If the price of a gallon of gas hit $4 or $5, our economy would be very drastically hindered. Diesel is almost more important than gasoline. Some could argue it's far more important. How do you think food gets to the grocery store? When the price of diesel goes up, all prices go up to some degree because almost every product or its subcomponents are transferred by truck.

At $10 per gallon (in today's dollar value), almost all non-essential businesses would not be economically viable. Of course, by that point, any cheaper alternative would be taken. Gasoline would simply not be an option.

 

[Rebar]

I'm just waiting for Rebar to come in here and tell us all why this is a good thing because the Republicans did it, and we should all go out and vote for them next time around to reward them for this kind of behavior.

Lol.

Preacherman is right - the republicans learned pork barreling from the experts, the Democrats. Are you going to "punish" those damn pork-barreling republicans, by voting for the even more pork-barreling Democrats? Sound more like you'd be punishing yourself. Some people like that, whatever floats your boat.

Anyway, I think the republicans might be thinking of buying an extended stay as the majority party with all this. I think it's a mistake, and a big one. Democrats like massive pork barreling, republicans don't, and they just won't go vote. No turnout = no wins = no more majority. A poor strategy almost guarenteed to backfire, and backfire for several more elections.

 

[R.H. Lee]

sometimes as high as circa $2.65.

I just paid $2.73.9 an hour ago. And that's the cheapest gas in town.

 

[Flyboy]

Anyway, I think the republicans might be thinking of buying an extended stay as the majority party with all this.

Damn right they're buying it! They're buying it with my money!

If you have to become your opponent to beat him, you're not winning.

As for who I'd vote for, I believe I've mentioned elsewhere that I vote people, not parties. Though I would point out to you that when the Congress and the Presidency are split, spending tends to go down. Gridlock is bad for Washington, and good for the country (funny how that works).

As to "punishing" the Republicans, well, haven't we had a number of threads about how the Democrats are backing down on the gun issue because it's turning out to be a loser for them? The Republicans in power (and it's pretty much just the ones in power--there are a lot of Republicans who are just as upset about this as we are) are doing a pretty good job of keeping Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism! at the front of everybody's consciousness; were it not for that, I think people would probably see the reality of the situation. I'll refrain from making a "wag the dog" accusation, but it's certainly a handy coincidence. In any case, if it takes losing a few elections to reform the party, then that's what it'll take. I have a feeling, though, that, wtih the growing body of dissatisfied "traditional" conservatives throughout the party structure, it won't take many lost seats for them to get the message. Heck, the NRA is talking about backing DeWine's Democrat opponent in the next election. A few more high-profile cases like that--get the National Taxpayer's Union and a few other groups to oppose RINOs and neocons--and we might get somewhere. But it's not going to happen if we keep rewarding them any more than the terrorists will leave us alone if we just play nice and send them food, money, and nuke fuel.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yeah! He's doing it so the Republicans will get all of Alaska's electoral college votes!

Oh wait, they already got them in the last election. All 2 of them...

 

[RevDisk]

Yeah! He's doing it so the Republicans will get all of Alaska's electoral college votes!

Oh wait, they already got them in the last election. All 2 of them...

Politicians believe in looting as much as they can while they still can.

 

[JohnKSa]

So what's his "evil motive"? I may be dense, but I just don't get it...

 

[Igloodude]

And to add insult to injury, the bridge outside Anchorage Alaska will be officially named "Don Young's Way" (and to those who might not know it, Don Young is Alaska's lone US Representative).

 

[Standing Wolf]

What a great country! All that free money! Nobody's responsible for it! Nobody ever has to account for it!

The streets really are paved with gold!

 

[Rebar]

Damn right they're buying it! They're buying it with my money!

Yeah, and this is different from the last 100 years, how?

As for who I'd vote for, I believe I've mentioned elsewhere that I vote people, not parties.

The way things are set up now, and for the forseeable future, is that the majority party sets the agenda and calls most of the shots. So you might vote people, but party matters, and matters a lot.

And again, who else is there? Do you really think that somehow the Democrats have magically become the party of fiscal responsibility? That they wouldn't equal or exceed the republican's pork if and when they take over? Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.

 

[petrel800]

I don't know what you guys are so mad about. By the Washington, DC definition they cut spending with this bill . . .

The Republican leader oversaw nearly two years of negotiations on Capitol Hill to get a slimmed-down version that Bush would accept.

 

[Art Eatman]

Byrd of West ByGod Virginia is not known as "Senator Pork" for no reason. Last I heard, he's a Democrat.

Art

 

[Flyboy]

Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.

Last I heard, spending bills had to originate over on Capitol Hill. The President can sign or veto, and can suggest, but it takes two to tango. Go back and re-read the bit about "gridlock," then go look at spending for years where the Congress and Presidency were split, versus years they were common. Bet you'll find an interesting trend.

 

[Rebar]

Go back and re-read the bit about "gridlock,"

Gridlock doesn't get us good judges, or liability reform.

Gridlock is also a pretty big assumption. What if Hillary and a majority of Democrats win? Then I think you'll have something to really complain about. That is, after you're done handing your guns in.

 

[Flyboy]

Just out of curiosity, what would the Republicans have to do to lose your vote? Can it be done? Will you vote for them no matter what, or is there some threshold they can't cross? If there is a line in the sand, what is it?