|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 3, 2008 17:38:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 3, 2008 19:40:34 GMT -8
Jens, you don't need to be such a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 3, 2008 20:01:37 GMT -8
Pollster: "Do you approve of the job Congress is doing?" Public: "Hell no!!!!" Pollster: "Do you approve of the job your congressman is doing?" Public: "Hell yes!!! Wonderful job!!!!!!" Yeah, woo hoo, my congressman brings home the bacon. Wonderful, wonderful job. I think Mc Cain was advocating some law, which would put the author's of earmarks into the bill itself. Then I'll get see just how much pork my man brings home. Look at the government save my job: SEC. 211. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS. Post the BS you find in this "bill" (or novel). Hey, what spending bill doesn't have pork? Congressmen and congresswomen aren't vegeterians. That's one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on. ;D Here's a pork article from 2006. www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1256.cfmBtw, that TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT doesn't seem too bad. It only cost $100,000, and it does encourage energy consevation. I'm not sure if these remaining pork projects (from 2007) got "approved" but here are my favorite's: Senate- Interior- $250,000 Mother's Day Shrine Building, Grafton, West Virginia House- Labor-HHS- $175,000 Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy Senate- Labor-HHS- $250,000 Jazz Education Programs in Alaska Schools, Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz, Washington, DC House- Labor-HHS- $300,000 Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, Cincinnati, Ohio LOL! ;D The arrow thing comes courtesy of the senators from Oregon. Jocko, he must be so proud.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 3, 2008 20:06:27 GMT -8
Someone explain to me the concept for adding 'pork'' to a bill. Why is this even legal?
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 3, 2008 20:19:50 GMT -8
Someone explain to me the concept for adding 'pork'' to a bill. Why is this even legal? I'm not sure how pork orginated, but it (the term) has been around for a long time. I was browsing for some articles on the history of pork, legislative pork, and while I didn't find a concise article, I did I come across this: community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920522&slug=1493205Btw, who is the real king of pork Senator Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska or Senator Byrd (D) from West Virgina?
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 3, 2008 20:21:28 GMT -8
I think Mc Cain was advocating some law, which would put the author's of earmarks into the bill itself. He should try it then. No one would support it though. True. Doesn't make it right though. What does it have to do with this "crisis?" Doesn't make sense how President Bush's 3-page bailout turns into 400+ by the Senate. ;D My favorite! Preparatory for what? Tennis? He's from Wyoming though. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 3, 2008 20:33:34 GMT -8
What does it have to do with this "crisis?" Doesn't make sense how President Bush's 3-page bailout turns into 400+ by the Senate. That's the only way they could get this bill passed. "Hey, congressman, I hear that you're iffy about this "bail-out," I mean "rescue" bill. You like bacon right? Remember those wooden arrows you were talking about..." ;D Darn, darn, darn. I'll have to reserve my ridicule for a later moment.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 3, 2008 20:40:14 GMT -8
Someone explain to me the concept for adding 'pork'' to a bill. Why is this even legal? It's to get other legislators to vote for something they normally wouldn't. Stuff like the wooden arrow thing would never pass by themselves so legislators add it on to bills they know will pass (who knew there was a wooden arrow lobby!! And that they own Oregon!!! ;D). If someone voted against a mental health bill because it had the wooden arrow thing added to it they would look evil to the public and their opponents would say, "they don't care about mental health." To make a long story short it's basically buying votes. The theory is if you bring home the bacon the people will vote for you. This mental health bill that the bailout was added too was most likely going to pass, but after the house passed it the senate tied it up with a bunch of amendments. Since the house and senate have to pass identical bills for the president to sign it the Senate brought the mental health bill back out to kill two birds with one stone. The house already passed it so the senate left their amendments on the bill, tacked the bailout thing on, and sent it back to the house hoping they would pass the identical bill (being the house already passed the mental health bill it was likely they'd pass it again). So this entire bill is a pork bill. The senate got their pork passed that was tacked onto the mental health bill AND their bailout thingy. If the bailout thing didn't have the mental health bill it probably would've failed the house again. One of the representatives from MN that voted for the bailout said he only did so because of the mental health bill (he was one of the coauthors of that bill). Also, the senate probably added a lot of this pork because they knew the bailout bill would pass in the senate and it would leave all the pressure on the House to pass the bill. Would they take the time to cut the pork (and then add their own) or just pass anything because they are being rushed by the president, media, etc. that this is a "crisis." At least that is my theory. I also heard the mental health bill wasn't passed earlier this year because they were concerned about how it was going to be paid for. Since this bailout thing is so large now (as much as $1.8 trillion) they apparently thought no one would notice. Again, just my opinion. I'd say Rep. James Oberstar (D) from Minnesota is just as bad.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 3, 2008 20:49:54 GMT -8
I missed a good one. Maybe Chris (from Nevada) can explain this one:
Senate - Agriculture -$1,000,000
Mormon Cricket & Grasshopper Activities in Utah
|
|
|
Post by natedogg23 on Oct 3, 2008 21:38:34 GMT -8
Thanks for the support christopher.....Unfortunately, when a person has a weak arguement they try to deflect attention by belittling another person in an attempt to tarnish their image. Fortunately I am smart enough, apparently even at the supposed age of 10, to realize this fact and rise above it.
Now in regards to the actual responses to some of my questions........let me explain why the answers aren't right. I apologize ahead of time if I jump around a bit or it is a bit muddled as this was a quick response.
You actually made comments that are a reason why a gold standard would be a good idea. The increasing price of gold is due to the inflation of the dollar. Gold is a hedge against the inflation of the dollar (or put another way, loss of buying power). Without our money linked to a gold (or even something that has intrinsic value) standard there is nothing LIMITING how much currency can be created. Without the US currency being linked to anything of value allows for money to be created out of nothing, just like the example I presented in my last post describing how the fractional reserve system works.
Your comment that there isn't enough gold to support it doesn't make any sense either. There is plenty of gold to support it, we are just accustomed to this amount of money so it is tough to envision having less money with something of value backing it, but then actually having more buying power. The key is buying power, not the amount of money you have. If I had $10,000 but a loaf of bread costs $5,000 that the amount of money I have doesn't really matter, but lets say I had $100 but bread only cost $1 then I have much stronger buying power even though I have substantially less money.
Now you answered the next question pretty well, but with no substance. They will go into more debt to finance this 'bailout' but that doesn't necessarily equate to 'being fucked'.
Also nice to see you didn't care to tackle the last question seeing how it had important relevance in regards to the gold standard question. Feel free to tackle the question, but I basically gave a partial answer above.
I appreciate you taking the time to make a response, but I would recommend doing a bit more research before making a post so that you can at least present a stronger arguement. I find it amusing that you find my comments intellectually inferior, but then you make comments that lack substance to back up your viewpoint. I'm not going to say I always have the right answer either and I am open to rethinking my stance on any subject if there is enough compelling evidence, but so far you aren't bringing much to the table.
|
|
|
Post by natedogg23 on Oct 3, 2008 21:44:43 GMT -8
And if anyone is interested in a pretty simple explanation of our monetary system plus some examples of a commodity based money system and how inflation/deflation comes into play, give this article/blog a read: www.bullnotbull.com/bull/node/39
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Oct 4, 2008 0:03:09 GMT -8
And today one giant middle finger was given to the middle class. The class system should die a long, slow, horrible death anyway. It's an outdated, divisive, unneccessary relic of Victorian British colonialism and elitism. So... people with lower wages have the same interest as those with high wages?
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 4, 2008 0:48:02 GMT -8
The class system should die a long, slow, horrible death anyway. It's an outdated, divisive, unneccessary relic of Victorian British colonialism and elitism. So... people with lower wages have the same interest as those with high wages? I have no clue what this means. I was referring to the fact that people still refer to themselves as being "lower" or "middle" or "upper" class, which is something I dislike. Making distinctions between people based on income is different, because it's something that's actually quantifiable, as opposed to some sort of vague notion of one set of people being better than another due to social status.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Oct 4, 2008 12:49:56 GMT -8
So... people with lower wages have the same interest as those with high wages? I have no clue what this means. I was referring to the fact that people still refer to themselves as being "lower" or "middle" or "upper" class, which is something I dislike. Making distinctions between people based on income is different, because it's something that's actually quantifiable, as opposed to some sort of vague notion of one set of people being better than another due to social status. I think you have some misled notion about the the middle class is, because it's -all- about income. The upper class is the one getting bailed out in the first place and won't be too affected by the tax increase anyway. The lower class rarely gets their taxes raised because that's considered mean. That just leaves the middle class to get screwed, like it always is.
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Oct 4, 2008 12:52:21 GMT -8
So... people with lower wages have the same interest as those with high wages? I have no clue what this means. I was referring to the fact that people still refer to themselves as being "lower" or "middle" or "upper" class, which is something I dislike. Making distinctions between people based on income is different, because it's something that's actually quantifiable, as opposed to some sort of vague notion of one set of people being better than another due to social status. Which is why you can lease an Infiniti G37 or a Lexus IS250 and buy an Iphone!
|
|