As I said I am again all pork like this. But since the republican party controlled the House of Representatives, its been quite egregious. Just look at the emergency appropriations supplements for 9/11 - over a third of the funds allocated involved pork going to republican districts.
At 11:12 AM 8/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Let's get rid of Democratic pork while we are at it too. Can you "The Big >Dig?" The glut comes from both sides of the aisle Larry. I acknowledge >it, can you? > > > >In case you didn't notice I only quoted the first couple of paragraphs. Why > >ascribe motives when you really have no reason to. > > > >I have no problem with cutting spending. Lets start with congressional > >pork. Such as all the port that Trent Lott brought in to Alabama, or the > >current republican leaders have brought into their states. How about the > >billions in corporate welfare that have been granted in the last 2 years or > >the severe discounts in mineral and resources leases in the west. > > > >Also you were quoting the republican congress critter ( Jim Nussle > >(R-Iowa)) not the CBO report. Of course he has a vested interest in saying > >that it is not the fault of the regime he supports. > > > > > > > >At 09:16 AM 8/27/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> From the article: "The CBO's "baseline" deficit projection assumes > >> emergency wartime spending approved by Congress last year will continue > >> indefinitely, at a cost of $818 billion through 2013." > >> > >>Convienently left that one out didn't you Larry. Does anyone believe that > >>the war will carry on for another 10 years? There's $818 billion right > there. > >> > >>And a Rep from my great state nailed it: > >>"Still, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) did not try to > >>minimize the government's deteriorating fiscal fortunes. He laid the blame > >>not on tax cuts but on federal spending, which has surged by an average of > >>7.7 percent per year since 1998." > >> > >>"This is a spending-driven deficit," Nussle said. "This is not rocket > >>science." > >> > >>Of course, Larry, as a lib you can't advocate cutting spending. Unless, > >>of course it's cuts in Defense, which we all know we need right now. > >> > >> > >> > >> >The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office blames the Bush Tax Cut > and the > >> >War in Iraq > >> > > >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46805-2003Aug26.html > >> > > >> >2004 Deficit to Reach $480 Billion, Report Forecasts > >> >By Jonathan Weisman > >> >Washington Post Staff Writer > >> >Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A02 > >> > > >> > > >> >The federal government will post a record $480 billion deficit next year > >> >and accumulate nearly $1.4 trillion in new debt over the coming decade > >> >before climbing back into the black by 2012, the nonpartisan > Congressional > >> >Budget Office said yesterday. > >> > > >> >But if President Bush succeeds in making his tax cuts permanent, the > >> >government will run substantial budget deficits as far as the eye can > see, > >> >the forecast made clear. Add the White House's proposed $400 billion > >> >prescription drug benefit, and the deficit would total $324 billion > in 2013. > >> >-- > >> > > >> >I'd really love to make a comment on this, but its so disgusting how > under > >> >the Shrub regime the government went from a multi-billion dollar > surplus to > >> >a record deficit in just two years. It seriously makes me wonder on whose > >> >side Shrub is really on. Ours or those who want to destroy this nation. > >> > > >> >larry > >> > > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
