PDA

View Full Version : Senator Kit Bond votes against moratorium on pork-barrel spending


wazu
03-16-2008, 02:50 PM
What a conservative. Let's take on another 30 billion dollars in debt for more pet projects and bridges to nowhere.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00075

patteeu
03-16-2008, 03:23 PM
Wait a minute. I thought it was the democrats who were the fiscally responsible ones now. Given that "new truth", why single out Kit Bond? I agree with your criticism of Bond, but let's not leave the bigger picture out here:

Of the 29 votes in favor of this measure, 23 of them were Republicans and 1 was independent Joe Lieberman. Only 5 democrats joined the dissent.

wazu
03-16-2008, 03:30 PM
Wait a minute. I thought it was the democrats who were the fiscally responsible ones now. Given that "new truth", why single out Kit Bond? I agree with your criticism of Bond, but let's not leave the bigger picture out here:

Of the 29 votes in favor of this measure, 23 of them were Republicans and 1 was independent Joe Lieberman. Only 5 democrats joined the dissent.

I'm singling out Bond because he is from Missouri, and therefore is somebody that I can actually vote against. The other Senator from Missouri, a Democrat, actually voted and in fact co-sponsored the legislation.

And singling people out is the only way to approach this kind of thing. These pork-barrel politicians stick together and want to hide in anonymity amidst each other. I think their constituents would be surprised to see the way they vote sometimes.

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 03:42 PM
I'm singling out Bond because he is from Missouri, and therefore is somebody that I can actually vote against. The other Senator from Missouri, a Democrat, actually voted and in fact co-sponsored the legislation.

And singling people out is the only way to approach this kind of thing. These pork-barrel politicians stick together and want to hide in anonymity amidst each other. I think their constituents would be surprised to see the way they vote sometimes.

Yep. I was about to say that McCaskill actually voted yes for this.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 03:44 PM
must have something wrong with the bill if that hag supports it

wazu
03-16-2008, 03:49 PM
must have something wrong with the bill if that hag supports it

McCaskill has been very public in her opposition to any and all earmarks. Here is the entire text of the amendment, though if you want to look for the fine print:

"To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009."

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 03:54 PM
so he voted aginst the ammendment to the main bill...

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 03:55 PM
they have not voted on the bill in its entirity have they...

NO

So this does not mean he wont vote on it in the end does it...

No


Ok.

wazu
03-16-2008, 03:56 PM
so he voted aginst the ammendment to the main bill...

Correct.

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 04:00 PM
they have not voted on the bill in its entirity have they...

NO

So this does not mean he wont vote on it in the end does it...

No


Ok.

The bill was for the 2009 budget if I am reading that right. So he voted against not having earmarks for 2009. What a douchebag

wazu
03-16-2008, 04:03 PM
they have not voted on the bill in its entirity have they...

NO

So this does not mean he wont vote on it in the end does it...

No


Ok.

What are you talking about? The Senate actually did pass the budget. Bond didn't even bother to vote on that.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00085

But don't take it from me or the official Senate web site. Here is a source that is more fair and balanced:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337757,00.html

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 04:05 PM
What are you talking about? The Senate actually did pass the budget. Bond didn't even bother to vote on that.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00085

But don't take it from me or the official Senate web site. Here is a source that is more fair and balanced:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337757,00.html


LMAO We don't need no stinking budget!! We will spend all of your money and have endless earmarks.

Is fag-boy Bond up for re-election?

wazu
03-16-2008, 04:06 PM
LMAO We don't need no stinking budget!! We will spend all of your money and have endless earmarks.

Is Rump Ranger-boy Bond up for re-election?

Not until 2010.

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 04:07 PM
Not until 2010.

Damn. Thanks.

pikesome
03-16-2008, 04:22 PM
I'm not 100% on Senate procedures but if I read this (http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billnum=S.CON.RES.70&congress=110&size=full) right, the vote was meaningless because the "chair" determined the amendment was out of order and shit-canned it. What does that mean about the vote? Dunno. Surprisingly I'm having trouble finding out the exact rules via the Internet.

03/13/2008: S.AMDT.4347 Point of order raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 4347.
03/13/2008: S.AMDT.4347 Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 4347 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 29 - 71. Record Vote Number: 75.
03/13/2008: S.AMDT.4347 Amendment SA 4347 ruled out of order by the chair.
03/13/2008: S.AMDT.4347 Amendment SA 4347 proposed by Senator DeMint. To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 04:30 PM
you are correct...

And it was a vote against the ammendment the budget has not come up for a vote at all yet. They have not allocated or even voted on the Farm appropriation that satrts in April.

Asshats who go nuts over an amendment vote ....try understanding the process

pikesome
03-16-2008, 04:35 PM
you are correct...

And it was a vote against the ammendment the budget has not come up for a vote at all yet. They have not allocated or even voted on the Farm appropriation that satrts in April.

Asshats who go nuts over an amendment vote ....try understanding the process

It's sounds like a mixture of political masturbation and grandstanding. That everyone involved knew wouldn't amount to anything. I see all of the Pres candidates weighed in.

patteeu
03-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Yep. I was about to say that McCaskill actually voted yes for this.

McCaskill is practically a lone wolf on this. No one doubts Sen. Feingold's sincerity here either. I don't know about Evan Bayh so I won't disparage him, but aside from these three, the only democrats who could bring themselves to vote for this were the two presidential candidates who, no doubt, found the politics too much to ignore.

Looked at in the best possible light, only 10% of the new party of fiscal responsibility voted to restrain earmarks.

pikesome
03-16-2008, 04:39 PM
Oh, and unless I'm mistaken again, the "moratorium" mentioned in the amendment would be referred to as a "recommendation" in English.

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 04:39 PM
you are correct...

And it was a vote against the ammendment the budget has not come up for a vote at all yet. They have not allocated or even voted on the Farm appropriation that satrts in April.

Asshats who go nuts over an amendment vote ....try understanding the process

They voted against the amendment but that wasn't the budget vote. My apologies for being wrong on this.

The U.S. Senate passed a budget plan on Friday to eliminate the federal deficit by 2012 while spending more than President George W. Bush wants on domestic programs like schools and roads. After a 15-hour debate that began on Thursday, the Senate voted 51-44 mostly along party lines to approve a nonbinding $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint for the year beginning Oct. 1.
Before passing the measure, senators easily rejected a one-year ban on controversial spending projects, known as earmarks, that benefit specific cities or towns.
But they approved adding money for some international activities, including foreign aid, Iraq reconstruction, fighting AIDS globally and nuclear nonproliferation.
On Thursday, the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted 212-207 for a similar version of the budget without any Republicans supporting the measure.
Much of the House debate centered on Republican charges the bill eventually would bring a record tax increase. Democrats countered it would protect middle-class tax cuts now in place that are set to expire at the end of 2010.
This week's votes are certain to be fodder for a spirited debate on government taxes and spending in the presidential and congressional campaigns leading up to the November election.
The three main presidential candidates -- Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- interrupted their campaigns to cast votes.
The House and Senate will try to work out differences between their two budgets, both of which claim to end deficit spending by 2012. This year's budget deficit is forecast to hit about $400 billion.

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 04:45 PM
McCaskill is practically a lone wolf on this. No one doubts Sen. Feingold's sincerity here either. I don't know about Evan Bayh so I won't disparage him, but aside from these three, the only democrats who could bring themselves to vote for this were the two presidential candidates who, no doubt, found the politics too much to ignore.

Looked at in the best possible light, only 10% of the new party of fiscal responsibility voted to restrain earmarks.

I could see Bayh becoming VP if Clinton gets the nomination so that could be political.

jettio
03-16-2008, 04:56 PM
Bond is pretty much unbeatable for the reason that he brings home federal dollars to Missouri to a lot of different projects all over the state. Under the current rules that means he is an effective representative of Missouri citizens.

I think he underachieves his intellect and he has had some personal failings, but he does bring home the bacon and his son serves in the military, so unless the democrats find an outstanding candidate, he is likely to get my vote for as long as he wants the job.

patteeu
03-16-2008, 04:57 PM
I could see Bayh becoming VP if Clinton gets the nomination so that could be political.

He'd be a good one for Obama too, but he might not hate white people enough. Haha, I'm just kidding about that last part.

pikesome
03-16-2008, 05:00 PM
He'd be a good one for Obama too, but he might not hate white people enough. Haha, I'm just kidding about that last part.

What, he hates white people enough to be VP?

patteeu
03-16-2008, 05:06 PM
What, he hates white people enough to be VP?

:LOL:

dirk digler
03-16-2008, 05:06 PM
He'd be a good one for Obama too, but he might not hate white people enough. Haha, I'm just kidding about that last part.

Good one. :cuss: LMAO

wazu
03-16-2008, 08:02 PM
Bond is pretty much unbeatable for the reason that he brings home federal dollars to Missouri to a lot of different projects all over the state. Under the current rules that means he is an effective representative of Missouri citizens.

No it doesn't. Just means he is a tax-and-spender. The best way to bring dollars home to Missouri is to not take them away in the first place and lower taxes. Not by deficit spending and mortgaging our children's future to get your back scratched by state contractors.

You can make the argument that as long as other are doing it, so should we. Fine. This measure was stating that NOBODY would get to do it. This should receive 100% hunanimous support by anybody who claims to believe in conservative principles.

tiptap
03-17-2008, 01:04 PM
I like earmarks as long as they are transparent. I may not have liked how the Republicans spent earmarks for the defense of Indiana as opposed to harbors or skies but the concept is ok. I don't want some god damn imperial President with a line item veto mentality.