If you want to talk pork... don't forget all of the Democrats pork rather than single out one particular one...

They are ALL laid bare in this PDF of the 2010 Pig Book... it shows ALL of the pork projects... and doesn't leave any out. http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-...ok-summary.pdf

And you can go here for previous years back to 1991... as well as a searchible database.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/

Princess Nancy Pelosi had $75,384,500 In pork just in 2010.

Prince Harry Reid had $223,496,675 In pork for 2010 ALONE.

Democrats for the year 2010 had a total of $5,048,602,943 in pork. Right , over $5 BILLION dollars in pork projects.

Hello again, smoothy:

We KNOW they like to spend - ALL of 'em. That's not the point. The question NOW is the newly elected Republican controlled House of Representatives, lead by Speaker John Boehner, who wants to have an adult conversation about spending. He just doesn't want THIS adult conversation.

You aren't saying, are you, that because we spent like crazy in the past, it's OK for Boehner to keep doing it??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

(1) Entitlements: We PAID for 'em, that's why we're ENTITLED to them...

(2) Entitlements: We're arrogant and spoiled believing we're ENTITLED to live off somebody else.

Which is it?

excon

---

Ex the first case exists for those who have contributed, the second exists for those who benefit without contributing.

Very black and white but actually it isn't, it is part of a social compact between the "government" and the people or between and "insurance company" and the people, or between an employer and the employees.

When you look at it that way, the first statement is true and the second is propaganda usually from right leaning political hacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

We KNOW they like to spend - ALL of 'em. That's not the point. The question NOW is the newly elected Republican controlled House of Representatives, lead by Speaker John Boehner, who wants to have an adult conversation about spending. He just doesn't want THIS adult conversation.

You aren't saying, are you, that because we spent like crazy in the past, it's ok for Boehner to keep doing it???

excon

---

That's Nothing compared to what the top Democrats have been doing.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones after all.

It can't be part of the social compact. That would mean both sides honor the terms ;and that is not the case. The tax is imposed... the terms have been altered regarding the guaranteed benefits and the taxpayer obligation to cover the red ink . The money has been cravenly added to the general revenue. The demographics ensure insolvency.

It is simply a big government program that can be altered at the whim of legislators. It was violated immediately upon passage when in a Supreme Court Challenge ,Roosevelt admitted that what had been called an insurance premium was in fact a tax.
Since the Congress has violated the terms of the so called compact so often ,the people are also within their rights to alter and abolish the scheme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Thats Nothing compared to what the top Democrats have been doing.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones after all.

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things... So, you apparently DO support the wasteful spending of John Boehner, and when you're called on it, you go all stone throwy on me... Well, smootho, my friend, that ain't the way it works around here. I'm a stone thrower. Get over it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It can't be part of the social compact. That would mean both sides honor the terms ;and that is not the case. The tax is imposed ...the terms have been altered regarding the guaranteed benefits and the taxpayer obligation to cover the red ink . The money has been cravenly added to the general revenue. The demographics ensure insolvency.

It is simply a big government program that can be altered at the whim of legislators. It was violated immediately upon passage when in a Supreme Court Challenge ,Roosevelt admitted that what had been called an insurance premium was in fact a tax.
Since the Congress has violated the terms of the so called compact so often ,the people are also within their rights to alter and abolish the scheme.

---

Ah Tom you can't have it both ways what you describe as the "whim of the legislators" is in fact democracy in action. Your forefathers, knowing the ways of men, limited the whim of the legislators however your supreme court has overturned their wishes with liberal intrepretations of your constitution. How can you say the people have any power to alter anything? The only power they have is to vote out the legislators but I think your nation is the same as mine, no social security measure is ever repealed, just fiddled with for political advantage.

As I understand it weepy John introduced the funding for the engine knowing it was going to get voted down.He did it to satisfy a demand of his local constituency. There will be negative economic impacts in his district from closing down the program Still he did not really press the case .

Aren't you encouraged that the majority went against the majority leader on a vote to fund a wasteful project ?
I hear Pelosi had a presser after the vote complaining that the Republicans want to send our fighter pilots in harms way with only one engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ah Tom you can't have it both ways what you decribe as the "whim of the legislators" is in fact democracy in action. Your forefathers, knowing the ways of men, limited the whim of the legislators however your supreme court has overturned their wishes with liberal intrepretations of your constitution. How can you say the people have any power to alter anything? the only power they have is to vote out the legislators but I think your nation is the same as mine, no social security measure is ever repealed, just fiddled with for political advantage.

---

Correct ,the people once forced to fund it kind of think the government ought to live up to their end of the deal. That's how they hook people ;filling them up with lies of "entitlements" and "guarantees" .

If Obamacare ever becomes established it will be the same pile of manure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things... So, you apparently DO support the wasteful spending of John Boehner, and when you're called on it, you go all stone throwy on me.... Well, smootho, my friend, that ain't the way it works around here. I'm a stone thrower. Get over it.

excon

---

Didn't hear you complaining about Pelosi and Reids raiding of the National coffers the last 4 years they held a majority in both houses...

Incidentally while on the Democrats watch... per my previous link for JUST 2010... by people that didn't even have the balls to put their name on the requests... probibly Democrats. Because they would have raised hell if it was Republicans.

In the 2010 Congressional Pig Book, CAGW uncovered 81 anonymous earmarks worth $6.5 billion. In direct contravention of the House and Senate rules, these earmarks had no identifiable requester. You may view these anonymous earmarks by using an asterisk as a search term under either the House or the Senate search fields.

All I know is the president's budget is laughable, and GOP talk of cutting spending has led to the usual BS from the left - Republicans hate women, children, minorities, gays, foreigners, blacks, browns, Muslims, teachers, etc. etc.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago the left was stepping back from the overheated rhetoric that allegedly led to the Tucson tragedy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago the left was stepping back from the overheated rhetoric that allegedly led to the Tuscon tragedy?

---

Hello again, steve:

Yeah... It was. Wasn't it only a few weeks ago when the Republicans were talking about jobs, jobs, jobs?? Well, instead of focusing on jobs, they decided, after having given zillions in tax cuts to the richest of Americans, to solve the country's debt crisis on the backs of the poor, and it pissed the left off. I don't know what's so surprising about that. You don't think we're just going to say PLEASE don't cut off heating oil subsidy's for the poor in the middle of winter, do you??

Well, it AIN'T going to happen - not on this board, and not in this nation.

excon

If numbnutz in the Whitehouse wasn't such an idiot and let the damn oil companies get the oil we have here out of the ground... the oil prices wouldn't be so high and NOBODY would even need a heating oil subsidy.

Obamas policies are driving UP the price of oil... and obviously like in everything else... he wants to subsidize his voter base for the stuff the rest of us are being forced to pay not only higher prices for... but to pay AGAIN to subsidize the people that aren't even paying federal taxes to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You don't think we're just gonna say PLEASE don't cut off heating oil subsidy's for the poor in the middle of winter, do you????

---

Um, the uproar I'm referring to is over the possibility of cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. And you know what, I'm damned tired of supporting an organization that kills babies with my tax dollars, and that certainly doesn't mean I hate women and children. Quite the opposite actually.