Here is some of the 2009 $410 Billion spending bill

[Jon88]

Fiscal Responsibility? Not from this Congress...


ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: The House Appropriations Committee just posted its $410 billion 2009 Omnibus spending bill. It's a doozy. This is the bill that will fund the government's operations until the end of the fiscal year. It's larded with thousands (so many, I can't count them all yet) of earmarks and adds up an increase in overall discretionary spending of more than 8 percent, the biggest one year increase since 1978 (with the exception of the spending boost after the September 11 attacks).

And this is a bi-partisan feeding frenzy. Roughly 40 percent of the money for earmarks (i.e. pet projects inserted by individual lawmakers) have been inserted by Republicans.

I am still combing through the bill, but here is what has caught my eye so far:

- The City of North Pole, Alaska (motto: "Where the Spirit of Christmas Lives Year Round") gets $1 million to improve its wastewater treatment system. That's $571.43 dollar per citizen.

- $1.75 million to acquire land for the Cape Cod National Seashore.

- $2.2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY

- $2.4 million for the Southeastern Poultry Research Lab in Athens, GA

- $42,000 for "Arbuscular Mycontizal Fungi" in Wyndmoor, PA

- $1 million for Corn and Soybean Research in Wooster, OH

- $1.8 million for the Honey Bee Lab in Weslaco, TX

- $1.8 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management Research in Ames, Iowa

- $443,000 for Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi

- $208,000 for Beaver Management and Control in North Carolina

- Several hundred thousand for "Blackbird Management" programs in KS, LA, ND and SD.

- $657,000 for Brown Tree Snake Management in Guam

- $1,049,000 for "Mormon Crickets" in Utah (I am told they are neither Mormon nor are they crickets)

- $162,000 for Rodent Control in Hawaii

- $209,000 to "Improve Blueberry Production and Efficiency" in Georgia

- $254,00 for the "Montana Sheep Institute"

- $413,000 for Tri-State Joint Peanut Research in Alabama

- $2.9 million for Shrimp Aquaculture in AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC and TX

- $277 million for 2nd Avenue Subway

- $210 million for LIRR terminal in Grand Central

[JBond]

I am sure every penny is justified. Congress would never spend more money than absolutely necessary and Obama would never allow earmarks in a bill he signs. You should know better.

[ABQCOWBOY]

- $2.9 million for Shrimp Aquaculture in AZ,


:lmao:

[JBond]

Another spending bill. Almost half a billion and almost no response. Have people just grown weary of the huge numbers thrown at them by the Obama regime? Has Obama spending fatigue already set in? Everyone is cool with the Federal Government taking an additional $410 billion to run the government until October?

[ajk23az]

- $2.9 million for Shrimp Aquaculture in AZ,


:lmao:

Hey! We need our shrimp to stay cheap down here :D /sarcasm.

[DaBoys4Life]

$1,049,000 for "Mormon Crickets"

What the hell is this ?

[JBond]

What the hell is this ?

It is right up there with the $30 million they spent on a damn frog in San Francisco in the "stimulus" bill.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It is right up there with the $30 million they spent on a damn frog in San Francisco in the "stimulus" bill.

Good grief...I mean it is bad enough you believed that $30 million was actually set aside just for one animal instead of protecting a number of wet lands but you STILL got the animal wrong that they were falsely using as outrage.

:laugh2:

I mean I can understand being mad that some of the money in the stimulus bill was being set aside for wetlands since that really has nothing to do with stimulus but for people to actually believe it was set aside just to save one animal is laughable. And I get accused of being assimilated by the media.

[Doomsday101]

Didn't you guys get the memo from Mr. Schumer? Americans do not mind a little pork. I will say they way the Government is spending we are all getting porked.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Didn't you guys get the memo from Mr. Schumer? Americans do not mind a little pork. I will say they way the Government is spending we are all getting porked.

Apparently he is right when you actually think about it. Because we keep electing Repus and Dems to positions and they keep spending money money money.

If we did not mind it so much, we would not keep electing them.

Well...can't say we as you or I. I didn't get who I wanted in and I did not get my state reps in I wanted in...but people as a whole I guess keep it going.

[Doomsday101]

Apparently he is right when you actually think about it. Because we keep electing Repus and Dems to positions and they keep spending money money money.

If we did not mind it so much, we would not keep electing them.

Well...can't say we as you or I. I didn't get who I wanted in and I did not get my state reps in I wanted in...but people as a whole I guess keep it going.

Well Obama is breaking records, he is spending in 1 month what it took Bush 8 years to spend.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well Obama is breaking records, he is spending in 1 month what it took Bush 8 years to spend.

Really? W's own stimulus plan, the Tarp plan and wars in Iraq and Afghan with numerous spending bills that he NEVER vetoed until the Dems got control.

Hmm...me thinks you are stretch armstronging it a tad.

[SkinsFan28]

- $2.2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY
whine is VERY IMPORTANT to stimulating the economy


- $443,000 for Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi

- $208,000 for Beaver Management and Control in North Carolina
everyone should manage and control their beavers!!!


- $254,00 for the "Montana Sheep Institute"
the variations on this joke are probably as endless as Montana's sheep


- $277 million for 2nd Avenue Subway
i heard the green line was envious:D

[Doomsday101]

Really? W's own stimulus plan, the Tarp plan and wars in Iraq and Afghan with numerous spending bills that he NEVER vetoed until the Dems got control.

Hmm...me thinks you are stretch armstronging it a tad.

Me think Obama is spending like crazy and the people who are getting the money are now asking for even more and we are going to hand it over and we will have yet another right around the corner. Sorry no what Obama is doing has been the largest spending in American history and there is no end is sight. He will spend us dry and the people are going to sit there with a smile on their face because he speaks so well and take it.

[Doomsday101]

whine is VERY IMPORTANT to stimulating the economy

everyone should manage and control their beavers!!!

the variations on this joke are probably as endless as Montana's sheep

i heard the green line was envious:D

Ward managed his beaver. :laugh2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Me think Obama is spending like crazy and the people who are getting the money are now asking for even more and we are going to hand it over and we will have yet another right around the corner. Sorry no what Obama is doing has been the largest spending in American history and there is no end is sight. He will spend us dry and the people are going to sit there with a smile on their face because he speaks so well and take it.

Never argued that he is not spending like a drunken sailor or that it will end anytime soon.

Only argued your point that he has spent more in one month than W did in 8 years.

[Doomsday101]

Never argued that he is not spending like a drunken sailor or that it will end anytime soon.

Only argued your point that he has spent more in one month than W did in 8 years.

it is not that far off

[BrAinPaiNt]

it is not that far off

W's stimulus and the Tarp were around a trillion combined.

That is not even counting the Iraq or Afghan wars.

W spent more money than all of his predecessors by a decent amount.

I think people underestimate how much that man spent.

Now this does not excuse Obama and it in no way defends his spending.

But your argument was off base and I think you know it.

[Doomsday101]

W's stimulus and the Tarp were around a trillion combined.

That is not even counting the Iraq or Afghan wars.

W spent more money than all of his predecessors by a decent amount.

I think people underestimate how much that man spent.

Now this does not excuse Obama and it in no way defends his spending.

But your argument was off base and I think you know it.

1 month, sorry no I don't think it is off base to compare 8 years to over a trillion in 1 month. I agree the republicans spent way to much which is why they no longer are in power yet Obama is getting a free ride spending this type of money and the early results are nothing more than the same companines saying we need even more. GM, Crystler need more now AIG needs more and we hand in over like it is nothing. Sorry but the fact is Obama is spending way out of line compared to any President in the US and has only been in office 1 month and that is a fact check it out yourself Obama spending has never been seen in the history of the United States bar none

[BrAinPaiNt]

1 month, sorry no I don't think it is off base to compare 8 years to over a trillion in 1 month. I agree the republicans spent way to much which is why they no longer are in power yet Obama is getting a free ride spending this type of money and the early results are nothing more than the same companines saying we need even more. GM, Crystler need more now AIG needs more and we hand in over like it is nothing. Sorry but the fact is Obama is spending way out of line compared to any President in the US and has only been in office 1 month and that is a fact check it out yourself Obama spending has never been seen in the history of the United States bar none

How is he getting a free ride exactly? I mean most in here are complaining about it. The Republicans are voting no consistantly. We have governors saying they will not take the money.
So how is he getting a free ride?

But saying one month...which passed a few days ago is the same as 8 years of spending is not correct no matter how much you try to make it so.

[Doomsday101]

How is he getting a free ride exactly? I mean most in here are complaining about it. The Republicans are voting no consistantly. We have governors saying they will not take the money.
So how is he getting a free ride?

But saying one month...which passed a few days ago is the same as 8 years of spending is not correct no matter how much you try to make it so.

Most here are silent voices the free pass is with the main stream media. As for the Governors who are talking about not taking the money they are being raked over the coals by the same media.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Most here are silent voices the free pass is with the main stream media. As for the Governors who are talking about not taking the money they are being raked over the coals by the same media.

The main stream media...you mean like the very left leaning MSNBC? You mean like at least two of their main people with their own shows complaining about it? That mainstream media?

[burmafrd]

If you can't tell the difference then there really is no point in continuing the discussion. Brain do you really think Obama is not getting an easy rideby the MSM?

[Doomsday101]

The main stream media...you mean like the very left leaning MSNBC? You mean like at least two of their main people with their own shows complaining about it? That mainstream media?

No I mean CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC as well as a vast majority of print media

[BrAinPaiNt]

If you can't tell the difference then there really is no point in continuing the discussion. Brain do you really think Obama is not getting an easy rideby the MSM?

When the leftest of the left (MSNBC) start questioning it...then the ride is no longer free.

Nuff said.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I posted something a week or so ago on who much was spent on the War. In short, as of the end of Dec., just over a Trillion had been spent in the entire War. The number was less then what has been spent in the first couple of weeks in the Obama Administration.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I posted something a week or so ago on who much was spent on the War. In short, as of the end of Dec., just over a Trillion had been spent in the entire War. The number was less then what has been spent in the first couple of weeks in the Obama Administration.

Yes but did you add into it W's stimulus bill? Did you add into it the Tarp that W pushed?

Did you add into it all the spending bills for various things that he never once vetoed before the dems got in power?

Add all of those things over 8 years and it is not close to the first month of obama.

Now...Obama will surpass that and in short time but not in the first month.

THAT was my point. Not that obama will not or has not spent.:)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes but did you add into it W's stimulus bill? Did you add into it the Tarp that W pushed?

Did you add into it all the spending bills for various things that he never once vetoed before the dems got in power?

Add all of those things over 8 years and it is not close to the first month of obama.

Now...Obama will surpass that and in short time but not in the first month.

THAT was my point. Not that obama will not or has not spent.:)

I think I was clear in the fact that I said the Iraqi War. Now, if it is associated with the expense of the War, then it is inclusive. If it is not associated with the Iraqi War, then it is not inclusive.

I do think, however, that it is important to stipulate that the original 700 Bailout Bill may have been started on GWs watch but over half of it has been turned over to the Obama Administration so I think that it's fair to say that at least half of that should be associated as debt under President Obama's Administration.

[JBond]

Yes but did you add into it W's stimulus bill? Did you add into it the Tarp that W pushed?

Did you add into it all the spending bills for various things that he never once vetoed before the dems got in power?

Add all of those things over 8 years and it is not close to the first month of obama.

Now...Obama will surpass that and in short time but not in the first month.

THAT was my point. Not that obama will not or has not spent.:)

Give it another 30 days....;)

[trickblue]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090213/i/r202222191.jpg

[jimnabby]

Well Obama is breaking records, he is spending in 1 month what it took Bush 8 years to spend.

Apparently, this bill contains 9000 earmarks totalling $5 billion.

In 2006 (last Republican Congress) there were about 16000 earmarks worth $72 billion.

[ShiningStar]

I know im probably jumping into a discussion i dont know for sure, without facts, or that my input really doesnt need apply here, but what the hell.


For the last Tarp that Bush started, I think he put that through knowing BO was going to do it anyway and was just making it easier on everyone, knowing, it was coming.

Didnt push give a Bailout to the Autoworkers the first time around and when they came the second his initial answer was no, but than was pushed into it because he was a lame duck Pres at the time and lots of heat went his way.

I do agree, 8 years of spending, vs 30 days isnt fair, but in those 30 days, you have to admit, when BO wanted money, they had no problem pushing this crap through. It is easier for him since he has a democratic congress and senate, and the republicans got blasted through the media.

And yes, BO is still on a free ride for a while. One or two correspondents on a heavily left news media is not really flambasting the guy. I gave up on reading MSN webpage BECAUSE every Obama was in at least 2 to 3 stories on the page, or some mention of his greatness was evident.

[ShiningStar]

Apparently, this bill contains 9000 earmarks totalling $5 billion.

In 2006 (last Republican Congress) there were about 16000 earmarks worth $72 billion.


what? The democrats have had congress since 2001 i believe.

[Doomsday101]

Apparently, this bill contains 9000 earmarks totalling $5 billion.

In 2006 (last Republican Congress) there were about 16000 earmarks worth $72 billion.

Last republican congress had a stimulus bill with 16,000 ear marks?

[JBond]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090213/i/r202222191.jpg

We will just make the responsible people who pay their loans, pay for everyone else too. Ha ha ha. We love spending other peoples money to buy votes. Ha ha ha. The stupid tax payers will never know what hit them. Ha ha ha.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090213/i/r202222191.jpg

If George Washington were still alive, he'd be lubricating all over those people.

:laugh2:

[Hoofbite]

What the hell is this ?

Probably the cost of cleanup from those things.

They swarm so think that they could probably block out the sun. I'd imagine that money goes to cleaning up the streets and stuff.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/apg_cricket_070428_mn.jpg

[Rowdy]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090213/i/r202222191.jpg

Man, they even have George in the picture asking for handouts.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Man, they even have George in the picture asking for handouts.

:laugh2: Funny thing is Old George did ask for handouts in his later life. Just not from the government.

[jimnabby]

what? The democrats have had congress since 2001 i believe.

Uh, no. The Democrats took both houses from the Republicans (who had controlled them since 1994) in the 2006 elections.

[jimnabby]

Last republican congress had a stimulus bill with 16,000 ear marks?

This thread isn't about the stimulus bill.

[Rowdy]

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8873/lib3.jpg

[Rowdy]

:laugh2: Funny thing is Old George did ask for handouts in his later life. Just not from the government.

I made ol' George "Colonial Cornrows" Washington happy now just for you BP.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5995/presidentgeorgewashingt.jpg

[Rowdy]

BTW-those are his real teeth. :D

[ABQCOWBOY]

This 410 is horrible. I mean, I just can't believe some of this stuff. I would like to see the Liberal who would defend this thing.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Anyone........ Anyone...... Beuller....... Anyone........ Fry?

[Beast_from_East]

Anyone........ Anyone...... Beuller....... Anyone........ Fry?

I agree 100% that this is all a bunch of crap pet projects to buy votes back home. Everybody gets a little something they can campaign on. While most of the replys have been about how much Obama is spending in his first 30 days, I noticed that not too many people picked up on this line in the article:


And this is a bi-partisan feeding frenzy. Roughly 40 percent of the money for earmarks (i.e. pet projects inserted by individual lawmakers) have been inserted by Republicans.



40% of this crap is from REPUBLICANS!!!!!:laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree 100% that this is all a bunch of crap pet projects to buy votes back home. Everybody gets a little something they can campaign on. While most of the replys have been about how much Obama is spending in his first 30 days, I noticed that not too many people picked up on this line in the article:


And this is a bi-partisan feeding frenzy. Roughly 40 percent of the money for earmarks (i.e. pet projects inserted by individual lawmakers) have been inserted by Republicans.



40% of this crap is from REPUBLICANS!!!!!:laugh2:

I have a bit of a difficult time with the 40% number. For example, if the 40% is based on dollars and those dollars are going to Specter or the two RDemocrats up in Maine, then that's not really representative of Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths. I'm not happy about 16 Republicans breaking ranks to vote in favor of this bill but nothing I can do about that. However, 16 out of a possible 174 only reflects just over 9%. Obviously, if your a conservative, you would rather see 100% against this kind of spending but still in all, 90% against is still very strong.

However, if the Democratic side of the house would like to expose these 16 Republicans for what they are, I'm fine with that. Please, by all means, do what you can to call them out and expose the names. Do that as much as you possibly can.

:)

[BrAinPaiNt]

I have a bit of a difficult time with the 40% number. For example, if the 40% is based on dollars and those dollars are going to Specter or the two RDemocrats up in Maine, then that's not really representative of Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths. I'm not happy about 16 Republicans breaking ranks to vote in favor of this bill but nothing I can do about that. However, 16 out of a possible 174 only reflects just over 9%. Obviously, if your a conservative, you would rather see 100% against this kind of spending but still in all, 90% against is still very strong.

However, if the Democratic side of the house would like to expose these 16 Republicans for what they are, I'm fine with that. Please, by all means, do what you can to call them out and expose the names. Do that as much as you possibly can.

:)

You have a difficult time thinking 40% of it came from republicans after the money they spent under W? Seriously.

I know people like to think that the republicans are fiscally conservative but they have proven otherwise over the years and furthermore they are politicians and politicians get voted for, funded and have ties to many groups and all of those groups don't fund those guys just because they like them.

I imagine you want to think Dems are the only ones that add ear marks and pork but if anything you should consider the way the republicans have been for some time now, why they have lost seats and why many, even in here, are calling for them to return to their core fiscal conservative ways.

But I don't care if they are dems, republicans or dems....they don't get funded by groups without giving a little something back and both parties are full of greedy politicians.

Frankly I am shocked, if you are being realistic and not just one party minded, that you can not believe that republicans would have a good number of earmarks in that bill.

Funny thing is that as loaded as this bill is with ear marks, it is probably around the same number of ear marks as some of the very bills that went through when the republicans had control and W was president and he never vetoed a one of them.

So again...not sure how you would think it is not a legit number with the republicans.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You have a difficult time thinking 40% of it came from republicans after the money they spent under W? Seriously.

I know people like to think that the republicans are fiscally conservative but they have proven otherwise over the years and furthermore they are politicians and politicians get voted for, funded and have ties to many groups and all of those groups don't fund those guys just because they like them.

I imagine you want to think Dems are the only ones that add ear marks and pork but if anything you should consider the way the republicans have been for some time now, why they have lost seats and why many, even in here, are calling for them to return to their core fiscal conservative ways.

But I don't care if they are dems, republicans or dems....they don't get funded by groups without giving a little something back and both parties are full of greedy politicians.

Frankly I am shocked, if you are being realistic and not just one party minded, that you can not believe that republicans would have a good number of earmarks in that bill.

Funny thing is that as loaded as this bill is with ear marks, it is probably around the same number of ear marks as some of the very bills that went through when the republicans had control and W was president and he never vetoed a one of them.

So again...not sure how you would think it is not a legit number with the republicans.

Simple way to put this to rest Brain. Show who, how and where the 40% claim is attributed.

That cuts right through the BS. You can continue to lean on Bush and what he did but it's a new day now. It's change so now, this thing is all about Democratic leadership. As I said earlier, post the names. Post the numbers, do what ever it takes to expose these Republicans. But do that before you try and make conservatives believe that this is a bipartisan effort.

That's the way to prove the point.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Simple way to put this to rest Brain. Show who, how and where the 40% claim is attributed.

That cuts right through the BS. You can continue to lean on Bush and what he did but it's a new day now. It's change so now, this thing is all about Democratic leadership. As I said earlier, post the names. Post the numbers, do what ever it takes to expose these Republicans. But do that before you try and make conservatives believe that this is a bipartisan effort.

That's the way to prove the point.

How about YOU post the names and the numbers. Why should I have to do it?

I mean if you want the simple way to put it to a test and cut right through the BS. That's the way to prove your point:laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

How about YOU post the names and the numbers. Why should I have to do it?

I mean if you want the simple way to put it to a test and cut right through the BS. That's the way to prove your point:laugh2:

You don't have to. You only have to if your going to lean on the 40% thing. I mean, that's your number, or should I say the number that is being used to support this 410 Billion dollar bill. I freely admit that I have no idea where the 40% number the democratic party used came from.

As I said, you don't have to but if there is to be any credability attached to it, then it would seem reasonable to be able to support it with some factual information.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You don't have to. You only have to if your going to lean on the 40% thing. I mean, that's your number, or should I say the number that is being used to support this 410 Billion dollar bill. I freely admit that I have no idea where the 40% number the democratic party used came from.

As I said, you don't have to but if there is to be any credability attached to it, then it would seem reasonable to be able to support it with some factual information.

Yes but again if you say it is not credibile why should the onus be on me instead of you? I mean it would seem reasonable for you to be able to support it being wrong with some factual information.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes but again if you say it is not credibile why should the onus be on me instead of you? I mean it would seem reasonable for you to be able to support it being wrong with some factual information.

I did not say it was credible or not. I said that if the 40% is going to people like Wingnuts in Maine or Specter in Pennsylvania, then that's not really representative of Republicans speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I don't know if the number is 40%. I don't know if it's 3 or 16 different Republicans and I don't know how the money is split up but I know this. It's not on me to disprove it. It's on those who make the claim to prove it is accurate.

Their is no debate about that. If you don't feel it should be on you to prove it, then just don't support the claim. If you support the claim, then it should be on those who toute the numbers to support them in some fashion. I mean, it's fair.

[sbark]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/62742.html

House Democrats estimate that Republicans inserted 40 percent of the earmarks in the bill. An independent budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the 60-40 Democratic-Republican ratio followed historical patterns

I suppose they think the ave. voter has lost track of which bill is which and what is Tarp and what is spending, what is budget and what is stimulus.

......and M.Steele was on Glenn Beck less than 10 days ago stateing he would hold his groups feet to the fire.....

I hear Obama's name will be taken off the earmark he had in the bill.....not the earmark, just his name removed

no word on Bidens 5+ earmarks....imo he wants the "credit"......

[JBond]

You have a difficult time thinking 40% of it came from republicans after the money they spent under W? Seriously.

I know people like to think that the republicans are fiscally conservative but they have proven otherwise over the years and furthermore they are politicians and politicians get voted for, funded and have ties to many groups and all of those groups don't fund those guys just because they like them.

I imagine you want to think Dems are the only ones that add ear marks and pork but if anything you should consider the way the republicans have been for some time now, why they have lost seats and why many, even in here, are calling for them to return to their core fiscal conservative ways.

But I don't care if they are dems, republicans or dems....they don't get funded by groups without giving a little something back and both parties are full of greedy politicians.

Frankly I am shocked, if you are being realistic and not just one party minded, that you can not believe that republicans would have a good number of earmarks in that bill.

Funny thing is that as loaded as this bill is with ear marks, it is probably around the same number of ear marks as some of the very bills that went through when the republicans had control and W was president and he never vetoed a one of them.

So again...not sure how you would think it is not a legit number with the republicans.

The Dems and Independents really need to stop throwing up facts about Bush. True Conservatives knew he was not one of us. I was against him from the first primary he ran in. He did some good things but he also did some bad things. Outrageous spending is number one.