-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
05 Jan 2013, 5:59 pm
The items that I showed were not applicable to the Sandy relief effort. I think that the definition of "Pork" is dependant on if you agree with it or not. Exactly why there needs to be clean bills, not loaded with measures ON BOTH SIDES.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
06 Jan 2013, 6:09 am
Sorry, but I asked for more information on some of them. For example, the Kennedy Space Centre could well have been damaged. As could vehicles used by homeland and border agencies. You just listed stuff and declared it pork.
Remember that the bill is.not just about 'relief', but also rebuilding and prevention/mitigation for the future. Proper planning would have the 'relief' already pre-funded to a large degree.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
06 Jan 2013, 10:06 am
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130104/OPINION16/301040004/Hurricane-Sandy-porkHumor first...
Fisheries in Mississippi? Alaska? Are you really trying to say that Sandy impacted Alaska? May I suggest a map of the United States?
The Kennedy Space center "damage" was beach erosion.
http://space.brevardtimes.com/2013/01/kennedy-space-center-called-pork-in.html4 million for sand?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
06 Jan 2013, 11:04 am
bbauska wrote:Fisheries in Mississippi? Alaska? Are you really trying to say that Sandy impacted Alaska? May I suggest a map of the United States?
If you read back to my response (which you seemed to ignore the first time), you'd see those were not the ones I was asking about.
Storms do move beaches. Also, building up beaches protects what's behind them from flooding in storms. And yes, it costs a lot to move a lot of sand. And the video on that link is showing the Centre during Sandy, where Sandy was causing damage.
Can't think how that's not related to the storm.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
07 Jan 2013, 11:03 am
Deficit reduction, Democrat style:Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.
Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes.
In other words, we want more taxes and we're prepared to promise that future Congresses will reduce spending . . . the same recipe that has brought us $16.4T in Debt.
-
- Rudewalrus
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 28 Mar 2005, 11:58 am
08 Jan 2013, 4:43 am
Hmmm....
Doctor Fate wrote:Deficit reduction, Democrat style:Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.
Didn't Romney/Ryan campaign on raising revenues through tax reform?
Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes.
In other words, we want more taxes and we're prepared to promise that future Congresses will reduce spending . . . the same recipe that has brought us $16.4T in Debt.
How do you get that? If half must come from higher taxes, the other half must come from spending cuts. Where does the quoted passage say anything about "future Congresses?"
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
08 Jan 2013, 8:17 am
Rudewalrus:
Didn't Romney/Ryan campaign on raising revenues through tax reform?
No, they campaigned on lowering rates and maintaining revenue at the same level through tax reform.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Jan 2013, 4:45 pm
Rudewalrus wrote:How do you get that? If half must come from higher taxes, the other half must come from spending cuts. Where does the quoted passage say anything about "future Congresses?"
It doesn't.
Tell you what: when the deal is done, let me know how much is immediately cut and how much is "pledged" or to be cut over the next ten years or whatever.
This is SOP: the best cuts are the ones that someone else has to make at some other time. In other words, the most popular cuts are the ones that never occur.
-
- SLOTerp
- F1 Driver (Pro VI)
-
- Posts: 8230
- Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am
08 Jan 2013, 4:59 pm
Pardon me for the interruption...
Steve,
In the event that my email to you goes unread (I may have old addresses), I figured this was a surefire way to get your attention. You are cordially invited to join the RBL this year. Please email me for details: mpolcen [at] verizon [dot] net
Best wishes,
Mike
... thank you for your time and now back to your regularly scheduled debating, pontificating, etc...
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
08 Jan 2013, 5:58 pm
SLOTerp wrote:Pardon me for the interruption...
... thank you for your time and now back to your regularly scheduled debating, pontificating, etc...
Sure, the economist among us has nothing to say about this stuff.
Oh, and we don't vote on trades anymore Fate, so you're welcome back. ;-)
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
20 Jan 2013, 7:28 pm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/20/plouffe_we_are_going_to_require_some_more_revenues.htmlIn a surprising twist of events, the last budget debate in which President Obama got his wish concerning new revenues; now there are concerns that there are needs of "new revenues"
Who saw that coming?
How much does the Administration need this time? How many more times are "new revenues" needed?
Inquiring minds want to know
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
21 Jan 2013, 5:32 am
Bbauska - well, if you want to reduce the debt in dollars, you will need a period when taxes and other revenue income exceeds spending.
But going by all of what was said in that clip, it looks like Plouffe means closing loopholes, and that John Boehner (not a member of the Administration last time I checked), had suggested this could add up to $800B to the cause.
Now, I guess some might want that 'balanced' by tax cuts elsewhere, but hey, it's all part of the effort!
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
28 Jan 2013, 9:33 am
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s
.
Interesting that this is in the Wall Street Journal....
http://articles.@#$!.com/2012-05 ... ken-sailor
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
28 Jan 2013, 9:35 am
can you try to fix the link ... it doesn't seem to work.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
28 Jan 2013, 9:56 am
articles.@#$!.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
this work?
Hmm. the second word in the address is market watch (no space)
I don't know why it gets scrambled.
