Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Pork by any other name is still a pig

Justin saw fit to respond to my post on pork. It's too easy to pick apart, so let's do it.

Everybody knows that bill will be vetoed.

Yes, we all knew that. So, why add the pork if it ain't going to do a bit of good for the people who wanted it in there. And, it gives Bush a reason to veto it besides the withdrawl date.

Everybody knew that the Democrats didn't have the votes from the start. The "pork" was added to get the votes it took to pass.

Wait. So this bill was so bad that we had to bribe people just to get 51 votes??? And that's the best excuse we can give?! Bribery! Let's face it. We're just as bad as Republicans. We don't deserve a majority is we're going to act the same as Republicans.

It worked. The president will veto it. The Democrats will send back another bill without the withdrawal date and without the pork. It will pass. The president will sign it. The show will be over and the war will go on.

It worked?! Selling out for a bill the president can sign? With the Republicans being able to use the pork as an example of the Democrats using the troops to play politics? And the Republicans being right?

The show will not be over. The Republicans are going to use this until November 2008 and beyond.

The Senate Democrats are a disgrace.



Todd said...

Whoa! Most of the items added could not be classified as "pork." Most of the items were added because the GOP failed to enact a budget bill for this fiscal year. The spending included in the bill are normally things that would have been added to the typical budget process. If there is a failure, it is the GOP failure to finalize a budget and not Democrats who are tryinig to rectify the problems that the failure caused.

Bob said...

Than why not enact a budget bill for this year? Or put these in to stand on their own?


Cameron said...

And they just happened to wait until this particular spending bill and with these particular congressmen to fix the errors that the evil republicans made.


Justin said...

I noticed you left off anything about spending $9.8 billion per month, every month, this fiscal year. That's another $70 billion between now and the election. Add in a few hundred more deaths of American soldiers between now and then, and a few thousand more Iraqi civilian deaths, and watch the Republicans try to run on their record.

That's a bit of a disgrace.

Justin said...

Oh wait, my count is off. $70 billion will only get you through to November of 2007. Add at least another $100 billion to get you through the election next year. But what's another $100 billion when we've already spent $500 billion?

Bob said...


The price tag, both in dollars and lives is a disgrace. However, that has not been the point of my posts.