Chip Bok for October 28, 2009

Is this any different then blaming everything on Obama including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the destroyed economy, the number of people that lost their jobs because of the destroyed economy, the balloon boy, death panels, bankers getting rich, swine flu, and the fact that Fox News got their feelings hurt.

When there is nothing to attack the Republicans make something up.

I see no one blaming Obama for the destroyed economy. Excuse me, I see no rational people blaming him. As for the Afghan war, he did not have to ramp that war up. He could have taken the same approach he did w/ Iraq. No one blames Obama for the swine flu, or bankers getting rich (it’s an understood that bankers are rich even if their companies aren’t). Swine flu isn’t being blamed on him. And FOX news didn’t just get their feelings hurt. They were outright denied entrance to a news conference that MSNBC, CNN, etc. were all scheduled to attend.

Hey NorthCarolinian…good response I’m with you!

Obama invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Nicaragua, Lebanon, AND Viet Nam! He also deregulated the banking industry and signed the contracts for the V-22, F-22 and B-2! He even started the black plague and invaded Jerusalem, right next to Suliman, or was it Richard, or maybe John Glenn?

The righties have definitely got their leotards on too tight.

$787B boondoggle - its all his.

Does anyone actually recall that the checks were signed by Bush and he just basically handed the money over. It was Obama that then tried to sort it out by making sure it didnt just got dumped into the black hole which was the banking industry. And so what if he blames Bush. Bush WAS at fault (not him personally, but his cabinet, with him being the representative of said cabinet will have to take responsibility). There is no denying that Bush royally screwed the pooch here, and Obama should highlight the fact that it was the fault of the previous administration and that he is trying is hardest to get it all solved. Obama in his first ten months has done more work and put in more hours than Bush did for at least 3 years of his presidency, now just because nay sayers have tried everything to try to stop Obama, doesnt mean that he is a bad president. If anything Obama is a great president for at least being able to DO the job, instead of a bunch of morons trying to run a country like a business, which is like trying to drive a car like you ride a motorcycle, sure the principle is the same, but that doesnt mean it works.

“a.c.d is either woefully ignorant or blindly partisan. Our idiot Congress approves ALL spending, which explains”

Yep, not one of their best moments. But unless I am mistaken, it was proposed by Bush, who did much to “market” it, and voted for by senators of both parties.

“Please don’t insult our intelligence by trying “the cost of the Iraq War” excuse to justify our National Debt. Look instead to the pork spending by the likes of Rep. Murtha. ”

Ok, are you seriously going there? Yes, don’t look at the big crate of apples I am eating. Look at the one apple which Johnnie is eating.

I don’t know if Murtha, or anyone else, got his voters a few pet projects. He might have, sure. But if Murtha got his voters some ham, Hallyburton, KBR and the like got the whole freaking pigsty. Comparing them to the overall cost of the war is laughable.

ANandy, It’s important to count all the decimal places.

“According to an estimate by Taxpayers for Common Sense, he’s [Murtha]steered more than $600 million in earmarks to his Pennsylvania district in the past four years and $2 billion since 1992.” $2 billion in 16 years is $125 million per year.

In half that time, 8 years, direct war allocations have totaled over $915,000 million (that’s $915 billion)…and that does not include the cost of future lifetime medical care for veterans, or for future replenishment of our depleted munitions stores.

So: Murtha’s 16 year total in millions - $2,000. The Iraq/Afgan war’s 8 year partial expense - $915,000.

915 - Iraq War 2 - Murtha

OK - “the likes of…”

2009 Congressional ‘pork’ hit about $19,600 million for 10,160 projects -

“As in years past, Alaska leads the nation with $221 million in earmarks, or $322 per capita. Hawaii, at $302 million in earmarks, or $235 per capita, ranks No. 2.” (CSM -4/14/09). Both top pork snaggers are Republicans. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/14/pig-book-congressional-pork-hits-196-billion-in-2009/

And, once again, proportionality and those pesky decimals: The Budget for 2009 projected $3,100 billion in spending…. about half of that is in the operating fund and not in restricted funds…so taking the Operating Fund of roughly $1,500 billion…The total ‘pork’ or ‘earmarks’ of $20 billion in 2009 is less than 2% of the total spending.

Operating Fund spending - $ 1,500 Earmarks or ‘pork’ - $20

20 1500

Pork - 1.3% of total spending.

I’m not insulting your intelligence; I’m making the assumption that you are capable of assimilating new information. That’s a compliment.,

2009 Bush II Budget available here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html

The more important point is that while defense expenditures, however excessive they might be, are constitutional, whereas the ‘pork’ is not.

Unfortunately, the pork is lumped into omnibus bills, and since President does not have a validated ‘line item veto’, the however unconstitutional expenditures of federal funds are going unchallenged.

Petergrt, Could you please explain why one kind of Congressional expenditure is constitutional and another is not?

I’d appreciate learning something new to me.

Thank you.

ANandy was raising the issue of the national debt and its causes, and said,

“Please don’t insult our intelligence by trying “the cost of the Iraq War” excuse to justify our National Debt. Look instead to the pork spending by the likes of Rep. Murtha.”

My point: the pork spending is less than 2% of the money going for all other operating expenses. Even if there is an issue of the constitutionality of this spending, it is still only about 1.3% of all operating fund spending.

Why does the constitutionality of spending seem “more important” to you? I’m guessing that the overbilling, fraud and corruption in government outsourcing to private contractors, which now takes up a substantial chunk of the operating fund has a rate considerably higher than 1.3% of the total. What do you think?

^ He’s been around 5 months so I guess he isn’t a “4th persona”. Too ugly to be true? Just a troll.

Certainly becoming more prolific in the last few days. Ramping up the hatred etc

Think he’s gonna go postal wherever he might be?

catch up with us collins - don’t be another one trick pony

“Could you please explain why one kind of Congressional expenditure is constitutional and another is not?”

I realize that it is difficult to believe, but “U” in the USA stands for Union. As in union of 57 states - as 0bama once said. (Can one imagine the fun the leftist intellectuals would have if it was uttered by Palin?)

The Federal Constitution establishes limitations on the federal government to: “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

The Federal Highway System, for example, was created as a defense system. It has since however become the biggest single ‘pork barrel’ avenue.

petergrt, Thankyou for taking the time to reply. However, your answer was vague, so I took the time to reread the Constitution. Here’s what I found…sounds to me like the highway system could just as easily be ‘post roads,’ but, at that, I couldn’t find anything in the Constitution that would restrict the federal government from choosing to spend taxes on a Defense Department, but restrict them from requiring that some of that spending went to a specific Congressman’s district (pork-as often happens):

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

hammon thank you for the recitation of the constitution. possessing a copy myself, one NOT obtained from the RNC, they are quite similar. I would like to point out for all those enamored with the phrase UNCONSTITUTIONAL that the constitution is the “frame work” not the house itself. All houses evenlop varying occupants throughout their time. said occupants modify and remodel said house to their own wishes at said time. the “framework” however, remains much the same. the constitution was never meant to meet the needs or answer all the questions of all people/occupants at all times. It is however the heart of the home and the building platform for creating the environment in which we wish to live in.

hey triple 6 could you take our buddy stan out for a beer? just make sure its not a DARK beer. you know how rednecks and archaic weaponry really don’t mix well with alcohol.

Why do so many opposed to abortion make the rest of us see the value in it- retroactively?

stan/striper

clearly under the guise of christian you couldn’t use all your pet words so you decided to be your alterego and spew your sickness

please man, get help

stan? are you really the stripe? thats not cool man. just be yourself, that fun loving, common sense ignoring, tin foil hat wearing, dictatorial party animal.

Im reaching out to steal your nose. I know you love that one!

Why do so many supporters of abortion make the rest of us discover the value of it - retroactively?