All Dem Senators are Crooks

[Gravitymaster 0]

That's just more election year whine and moan. When it come to people like Byrd and every other Democrat and their personal pork porjects, they are as bad as anyone.

Quote

CAGW Names 171 Representatives Who Voted Against Earmark Reform Porkers of the Month
Washington, D.C. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named all 171 members of Congress who voted against the disclosure of earmarks Porkers of the Month. On September 14, the House voted 245-171 for an internal rule change (H. Res. 1000) that requires all earmarks and their sponsors to be identified in spending, tax, and authorization bills.


“This is a serious step toward opening up the earmarking process,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “Much remains to be done to end the abuse of earmarks, but that is no reason for voting against what is clearly an improvement over the status quo.”

Of the 171 votes against the resolution, 147 were from Democrats. Twenty-two of the 24 nay votes from Republicans were members of the Appropriations Committee, infamous for its swollen earmarks, although not all on the committee opposed the measure. Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) had complained that the new requirement singled out appropriations bills but said that he would not whip the vote. Most earmarks are anonymously slipped into spending bills by individual appropriators without debate. The 2006 Congressional Pig Book identified 9,963 pork projects costing a record $29 billion in the fiscal 2006 appropriations bills.

Changes to House rules are only in effect through the end of the current Congress, although House leaders have indicated that it would be renewed at the start of the new term. The House rule would also have no effect on the Senate’s earmark procedure, but the House changes are already helping to spur similar action in the Senate.

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member David Obey (D-Wis.) called the rules change a “trivial pursuit” and House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) called it “shameful” and “a sham.” What is shameful is voting to oppose even the slightest exposure of the earmark process. Ironically, most of the “nay” voters undoubtedly have long lists of pet projects procured from the pork barrel proudly displayed on their websites.

Partisan politics and self-interest clearly influenced what was an easy vote for transparency and accountability. For ignoring taxpayers’ outrage over the waste and corruption of pork-barrel spending, CAGW names the 171 ‘nay’ voters on H. Res. 1000 Porkers of the Month for September 2006.

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth

Perhaps some of your own advice is in order?

[billvon 3,120]

>That's just more election year whine and moan.

1) 2005 was not an election year. Check your calendar.

2) When you need to slam them for not saying anything, the term used is "deafening silence." When you need to slam them for saying something, it is "whine and moan." There's a place for you in the White House press office if you ever need a job!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Just in case you didn't see this:

Of the 171 votes against the resolution, 147 were from Democrats.

Can I use you as a reference for the job if I decide to apply?

[Gravitymaster 0]

When you are done fawning over Byrd for his Lifetime of Porkbusting, take a look at the expression of self congratulation the King of Political Narcissism built for himself from taxpayers money. Which BTW was in violation of State law.

[billvon 3,120]

>Can I use you as a reference for the job if I decide to apply?

Absolutely! But I think Stephen Colbert may give you a run for your money . . .

>When you are done fawning over Byrd . . .

?? I have no particular fondness for Sen. Byrd. But if he were a skydiver, that would be an amusing name.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I mean a fair job paying fair wages, against the concept of Bush's rewriting of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, I mean the constant shooting down of the minimum wage increases that the Reps do to the extent individual states have upped it on their own,

The last President to kill a raise in min wage was CLINTON.

The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081. Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress.

Quote

The Dow Jones is at an all-time high

The DOW is a really bad measure of the stock market. Popular, but bad. Standard and Poor's is much better. The DOW is based on just 30 stocks, S&P is based on 470. DOW is based on ANY stock rising or falling any amount, while S&P uses the real amount of dollars earned or lost.

Also the all time high was midday Jan 14,2000 at 11,908.

Quote

When Clinton had his prosperous run the help wanted was as big as the rest of the paper.

Outsourcing had not gotten popular.

Quote

As for housing, no one can afford it since house prices have doubled

More people owned homes in 2004 than EVER before. The rate was expected to drop a little in 2005, but it was still high http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm

Latino's rate is higher than national average http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061008/HOMESCAPE/610080494/1186/HOMESCAPE98

Quote

There are more millionaires now than ever; the disparity is growing.

MORE millionaires is bad? I see that more people are able to make money is better than more people on welfare.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And the biggest economy in the history of the world.

Sounding more and more like Rome, circa 180 AD. They were the biggest empire in the world with the strongest economy and the best armies. They would never fall!

Quote

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
(Robert Heinlein, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, pg 227)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

More people owned homes in 2004 than EVER before. The rate was expected to drop a little in 2005, but it was still high http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm

Point of order: That figure is deceiving. Holding a mortgage is not ownership. We should expect those numbers to drop as the interest rates rise and force more foreclosures.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

More people owned homes in 2004 than EVER before. The rate was expected to drop a little in 2005, but it was still high http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm

Point of order: That figure is deceiving. Holding a mortgage is not ownership. We should expect those numbers to drop as the interest rates rise and force more foreclosures.

You're just splitting hairs. Nationwide housing numbers (that are used to assess the relative strength of our economy) have always included homes with liens.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Point of order: That figure is deceiving. Holding a mortgage is not ownership. We should expect those numbers to drop as the interest rates rise and force more foreclosures.

You're just splitting hairs. Nationwide housing numbers (that are used to assess the relative strength of our economy) have always included homes with liens.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Most of the fiscal policies recently put into place are due for a crash about midway through that term. Whoever's in the WH is going to inherit the hangover, both domestically and internationally.

The Libs didn't seem to recognize a problem when Bush inherited the Clinton hangover in 2000.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The Libs ......

< eyes..glazing...over...>

Zzzzzzzzzzzz..........

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Point of order: That figure is deceiving. Holding a mortgage is not ownership. We should expect those numbers to drop as the interest rates rise and force more foreclosures.

You're just splitting hairs. Nationwide housing numbers (that are used to assess the relative strength of our economy) have always included homes with liens.

And I don't think it's appropriate. It's not ownership, it's debtorship (if that's even a word). The reason that the numbers are high (besides speculation in the market) is because of the drastic drop in interest rates. That spurred the housing market, that kept our economy afloat while simultaneously driving up market prices to what is probably an artificial high. The down side comes when the interest rates climb, adjustable rate holders have to refinance at a higher rate. Now they have a higher mortgage payment that they may or may not be able to afford and their taxes have gone up due to a significant reassessment. This is another reason why I don't know why anyone would want to be elected president in 2008. Most of the fiscal policies recently put into place are due for a crash about midway through that term. Whoever's in the WH is going to inherit the hangover, both domestically and internationally.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Most of the fiscal policies recently put into place are due for a crash about midway through that term. Whoever's in the WH is going to inherit the hangover, both domestically and internationally.

The Libs didn't seem to recognize a problem when Bush inherited the Clinton hangover in 2000.

I recognized it. Anyone who knows anything about airplane stability could have seen that one coming
Any climb like that is unsustainable and a negative correction is necessary if you want to keep flying. My problem with Bush's handling of it was his negatively stable approach. His first reason for a tax cut was that he wanted to "give the people back their money because the government has taken too much" when referring to the budget surplus. He wanted a tax cut for whatever reason and he also wanted to increase spending in pretty much all areas of government, including areas that didn't exist before he showed up.
And for the record, I also said that the next president after Reagan was going to take a major hit due to Reagan's prolific use of the national credit card.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The Libs ......

< eyes..glazing...over...>

Zzzzzzzzzzzz..........

This seems to happen quite a bit. I'd switch to a more potent vitamin if it was me. Or perhaps a nice little nap.

-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most of the fiscal policies recently put into place are due for a crash about midway through that term. Whoever's in the WH is going to inherit the hangover, both domestically and internationally.

The Libs didn't seem to recognize a problem when Bush inherited the Clinton hangover in 2000.

I recognized it. Anyone who knows anything about airplane stability could have seen that one coming
Any climb like that is unsustainable and a negative correction is necessary if you want to keep flying. My problem with Bush's handling of it was his negatively stable approach. His first reason for a tax cut was that he wanted to "give the people back their money because the government has taken too much" when referring to the budget surplus. He wanted a tax cut for whatever reason and he also wanted to increase spending in pretty much all areas of government, including areas that didn't exist before he showed up.
And for the record, I also said that the next president after Reagan was going to take a major hit due to Reagan's prolific use of the national credit card.

No argument about the spending. Tax cuts only work when spending is reduced.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Are there any national recognized economists who see the world through your unique lenses.

Home ownership (mortgaged or not) has been an accepted number for assessing the health of our economy, for quite some time. What do you know that leading economists don't?

Politicians being bought and sold by corporate America is also the status quo but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Drastic drop in interest rates? They bottomed in 2003... and have more than doubled since then. Looking at the lat 15 years, current rates are relatively high.

And that's the point I was trying to make. The numbers originally quoted were for 2004, the year after the record low. Rates stayed pretty low until they started creeping up over the last couple of years. Now the rates are going up and you can count on foreclosures increasing because people "bought" more house than they can actually afford.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Are there any national recognized economists who see the world through your unique lenses.

Home ownership (mortgaged or not) has been an accepted number for assessing the health of our economy, for quite some time. What do you know that leading economists don't?

Politicians being bought and sold by corporate America is also the status quo but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Whether you like it not is irrelevant regarding it's validity as an economic indicator.

Quote

Drastic drop in interest rates? They bottomed in 2003... and have more than doubled since then. Looking at the lat 15 years, current rates are relatively high.

And that's the point I was trying to make. The numbers originally quoted were for 2004, the year after the record low. Rates stayed pretty low until they started creeping up over the last couple of years. Now the rates are going up and you can count on foreclosures increasing because people "bought" more house than they can actually afford.

The link provided gave homeownership numbers for the last ten years. With the exception of 2002, the numbers rose every year. Was that due to consistently falling interest rates?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More people owned homes in 2004 than EVER before. The rate was expected to drop a little in 2005, but it was still high http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm

Point of order: That figure is deceiving. Holding a mortgage is not ownership. We should expect those numbers to drop as the interest rates rise and force more foreclosures.

You're just splitting hairs. Nationwide housing numbers (that are used to assess the relative strength of our economy) have always included homes with liens.

The population is higher today than ever before too. Maybe there's a correlation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

The link also stated:

Quote

The home ownership rate for 2005 was 68.9%, down slightly from the recent high of 69.0% recorded in 2004. The 2004 rate was the highest rate since the Census Bureau began reporting these statistics in 1965.

[wmw999 2,589]

However, dueling statistics here. CNNMoney: finds that while home ownership rates as a whole are up, those for working class (poverty line to 120% of median in the area have had home ownership rates drop in the last 25 years.

Not surprising, given the rapid rise in real estate values. Sometimes it takes money to get money.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

However, dueling statistics here. CNNMoney: finds that while home ownership rates as a whole are up, those for working class (poverty line to 120% of median in the area have had home ownership rates drop in the last 25 years.

The study also showed that home ownership rates for working class families have risen from '91-99, 99-2001 and 2001-2005. It looks like the trend for the last 15 years has been favorable.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

However, dueling statistics here. CNNMoney: finds that while home ownership rates as a whole are up, those for working class (poverty line to 120% of median in the area have had home ownership rates drop in the last 25 years.

Not surprising, given the rapid rise in real estate values. Sometimes it takes money to get money.

Wendy W.

Quote

The study defines working class families are ones whose earnings range from $10,700, or the equivalent of working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, and up to 120 percent of the median income in their area.

I'd really be interested in the size of this group as a % of the total population.

[NCclimber 0]

Here's a link. Scroll down to the study titled "Locked Out". It was released March 2006.

http://www.nhc.org/index/chp-research-publications

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Whether you like it not is irrelevant regarding it's validity as an economic indicator.

I'm no economist but this is SC. Whether or not it's an "accepted" indicator is not my point. The fact that I think it's deceiving is. It's the difference between actual prosperity and perceived prosperity. It's not unilke the dollar. The dollar is only worth the paper it's printed on yet it's perceived value (for now) is higher.

The link provided gave homeownership numbers for the last ten years. With the exception of 2002, the numbers rose every year. Was that due to consistently falling interest rates?

The 90's were great as far as the economy was concerned so you can probably attribute some of the increase to that. The early 00's enjoyed the extremely low interest rates, more increase. Add in the increase in population and you have increasing numbers of mortgage holders. Makes perfect sense to me. But the point that I'm (again) trying to make is that those numbers are likely to change given the current situation. When I think about the economy I'm more concerned with how the current situation is going to affect my two young sons, not with how things might be portrayed for the next election cycle.