« | »

House Passes $410B In New Spending

From an elated Associated Press:

House OKs $410B bill to boost domestic programs

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled House approved $410 billion legislation Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration. The vote was 245-178, largely along party lines.

Republicans assailed the measure as too costly — particularly on the heels of a $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed last week. But Democrats jabbed back.

"The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., pointing out the large increase in deficits that President George W. Bush and GOP-controlled Congresses amassed…

Overall, the legislation would provided increases of roughly 8 percent for the federal agencies it covered, about $32 billion more than last year

After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects — a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.

Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service

Democrats also inserted a provision into the bill to end a program that allows students in the District of Columbia to use federal funds to attend private schools of their choice…

We are watching a Rodney King riots scale looting of the US treasury.

And they aren’t just looting from us, but from those not yet born.

"The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

Clearly they are as shameless as they are brazen.

They are trying to drive a stake through the heart of capitalism in America.

And just might succeed.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

22 Responses to “House Passes $410B In New Spending”

  1. CaliforniaBear says:

    I can’t believe McGovern has the gall to say something about the spending done while Bush was President. Over the month that Obama has been President, if this new bill passes, then they would have “spent” (you can’t really spend money you don’t have, can you?) more than $1 trillion dollars. You have just increased the deficit by 10% in the matter of a month. That is a shopping spree gone wrong. Just imagine what it is going to look like after 4 years of democratic control.

    God help us, please.

  2. CaliforniaBear says:

    Is it just me or does Pelosi’s face look like a skeleton or something you would see in a haunted house?

  3. TwilightZoned says:

    Unfortunately, I heard code in last night’s speech for even MORE money to be spent. With all this money being borrowed is this going to turn out like some people who only make the minimum payment on their huge credit card debit? Oh, wait! I forgot we are being led by democrats. Expect higher taxes on everyone who currently pays them; not just the top 2%. Silly me!

    • proreason says:

      As the song goes….”you ain’t seen nothin yet”.

      I was questioned about using the word “revolt” earlier today.

      We’ll see about that soon enough.

      I suspect the first step will be a small taxpayers revolt this April. After all, why would anyone now think they have to pay taxes honestly. It’s all about what you can get away with, isn’t it?

      You won’t hear about it, but tax receipts will drop by at least 5%, in addition to the drop from unemployment, in addition to the drop from no capital gains taxes for last year, in addition to the drop from the wealthy moving trillions off-shore last year. Overall receipts will be down 25 to 50%

      One more reason why “halving the deficit” in 4 years can only happen 2 ways….
      – increasing YOUR taxes 25% to 100%, or
      – an inflation FIRESTORM

      stock up on that ammunition

  4. nascarnation says:

    Sadly, Republicans DID do a lousy job on the budget when they had control.

    Now – Baraq & Co obviously are running wild.
    I see a lot of inflation ahead as the only way to obscure the upcoming monster shortfalls in Soc Sec, Medicare, etc.

    My advice to friends is to borrow lots of money at fixed rates.

    • proreason says:

      It wasn’t as bad as you have been led to believe, nascar.

      Bush’s spending was right in-line with history.

      See the graph in this link: Bush’s spending, like predecessors, was 20% of GDP. The Moron is now up to 30%


      Liberals have slurred Bush with spending figures that haven’t been adjusted for inflation or GDP.

      Even conservatives get tripped up by the in-your-face-25-hours-a-day-lying-cheating-scheming-liberal-media. I know I wasn’t aware of this information until a few days ago.

  5. BigOil says:

    The freight train of socialism rolls on. Here comes the next tsunami of spending:

    Obama to propose tax hikes to pay for health reform

    By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

    (MarketWatch) — President Barack Obama will propose $634 billion in tax hikes on upper-income taxpayers and cuts to government health spending to pay for health-care reform over the next 10 years, an administration official said Wednesday.
    The tax increases and spending cuts are being outlined as part of Obama’s first budget, which he will unveil on Thursday morning.
    The spending cuts are aimed at curbing overall health-care spending while also raising money for the new president’s plan to enact near-universal health care.
    The cuts would affect managed-care companies, prescription drug manufacturers and hospitals, The Wall Street Journal reported.
    Obama’s budget will aim to pump money into energy, education and health care even as it seeks to save cash by cutting programs and halve the roughly $1 trillion deficit by the end of his first term.
    Obama will deliver his spending priorities to Congress as the nation grapples with a punishing recession and persistent anxiety about the depressed state of financial markets.

    LOL – His plan is to raise money for health care by cutting health care. We will be very fortunate if we manage to survive this insanity.

  6. pdsand says:

    Republicans had two wars, and more importantly, they continued to indulge Democrat demands for funding. So they ran what now looks like modest deficits. I fail to understand why that is carte blanc for the Democrats to spend literally trillions, amassing trillion dollar deficits, and say, ‘you did the same thing’. My little liberal buddies all say the same thing, ‘the republicans ran deficits, so they can’t complain’.
    I heard it said so much last night, “That is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. That’s an American issue.” Well you would think these turds would realize that borrowing trillions, not over the course of 8 years, but over the course of the last several weeks, with more to come I’m sure, is an American issue. It’s not like they’re gonna “get us back” by literally ruining our country. Or maybe that’s the point.

    “Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.”

    We see how long that lasted.

    • proreason says:

      Look at the ibd link from my post a few above this one, pd.

      The Moron’s spending is already 50% more than Bush’s…..34 days into office.

      And Bush’s spending was not as bad as we all thought…..by god I wish the man would have defendeed himself.

    • Bronson says:

      Aparently its only defense spending that bothers them, hence Obama plans to cut defense spending in the future. Clinton’s “surplus” can be attributed, along with bizzare accounting, on defense spending, and shortly after his disgraceful departure we got 9-11. So maybe he should of spent just a little more on things like intelligence or defense.

  7. U NO HOO says:

    Ah, hah, bipartisanship is when we reach 50% of GDP.

    Can Obama do it by 2012?

  8. brad says:

    Size doesn’t matter, it’s how you use it. —All Men Everywhere.

    It doesn’t help if you show up with a big tow truck, and then drive it into the ditch, then you need another one later to pull both of you out. Well…..here. This is the democrats’ plan set to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u82CPjXV1Vw

  9. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    More money needed by the dem’s in power. More screwing over of the average American trying to survive or get ahead.

  10. yonason says:

    James McGovern, D-Mass. is just another democrat liar. They are the ones who got us into this mess, and now they are digging in deeper, and the @#$% idiots who voted for them can’t see it. Of course the @#$% odious Rinos who aided and abetted them are to blame, as well. And where are the real Conservatives who can speak out and make people understand? Anyone? HELLO!

    //RANT=OFF// (for the moment)

    • brad says:

      Nope, no one. Unfortunately, we are in the position again to take a backseat while the Democrats drive.

      Once the public gets bored and fed-up with their broken promises, and things are exactly the same or worse than the were before, the Republicans will have an advantage.

      Right now, Republicans screwed things up so bad when they had the House, Senate, White House, that the product name is not strong. Kick out or vote out the old, and make way for new blood. It’s best to let the crap Republican get voted out of office (if he won’t step aside) then vote in a new Republican a few years later.

  11. proreason says:

    VDH says there is no way current economy merits redefinition of government.

    “So are we in a depression that justifies a vast redefinition of government and a massive takeover of the private sector? Not quite. What we are a witnessing instead is a sharp downturn from the most affluent era in the history of civilization. For the last two decades, we borrowed and spent as if there were no tomorrow. Now we are living in that tomorrow of cutting back and making do.

    In relative terms, it is no longer 2005, but that does not mean it is 1932 either”


    But the radical left is siezing the moment. These are perilous times. Some of this crap will be impossible to unwind.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »