Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 PIGGY POLS IN HOG HEAVEN WITH PORK-PACKED PACT By DAPHNE RETTER, Post Correspondent Last updated: 5:59 am October 2, 2008 Posted: 3:50 am October 2, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022008/news/nationalnews/piggy_pols_in_hog_heaven_with_pork_packe_131770.htm WASHINGTON - Here, little piggies! Congressional deal-brookers yesterday slopped a mess of pork into the $700 billion financial rescue bill passed by the Senate last night - including a tax break for makers of kids' wooden arrows - in a bid to lure reluctant lawmakers into voting for the package Stuffed into the 451- page bill are more than $1.7 billion worth of targeted tax breaks to be doled out for a sty full of eyebrow-raising purposes over the next decade. "This is how Washington works," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington research group. "A big pot of pork is their recipe for final passage." The special provisions include tax breaks for: * Manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows - $6 million. * Puerto Rican and Virgin Is- lands rum producers - $192 million. * Wool research. * Auto-racing tracks - $128 million. * Corporations operating in American Samoa - $33 million. * Small- to medium-budget film and television productions - $10 million. Another measure inserted into the bill appears to be a bald-faced bid aimed at winning the support of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who voted against the original version when it went down in flames in the House on Monday. That provision - a $223 million package of tax benefits for fishermen and others whose livelihoods suffered as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill - has been the subject of fervent lobbying by Alaska's congressional delegation. Some of the pork-barrel measures buried in the financial rescue package had been contained in a bill that previously passed the Senate, but died in the House. The Congressional Budget Office said the package of breaks - including obvious pork and some more defensible tax-relief measures - will add about $112 billion to budget deficits over the next five years because the bill doesn't contain enough offsetting revenue hikes to keep the budget balanced. Full Article at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 You calling me out, Zguy? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 You calling me out, Zguy? :mad: Soooooeeeeeey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Bingo. This is the problem with bailouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Isn't the bailout itself almost by definition a pork product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Isn't the bailout itself almost by definition a pork product? Pork is usually defined as wasteful spending so whether this bailout represents pork or not depends on whether its needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Isn't the bailout itself almost by definition a pork product? Pork is usually defined as wasteful spending so whether this bailout represents pork or not depends on whether its needed. Right. The investment banking industry is going to try to roll all kinds of losses into this bailout. Someone already posted the possibility of these banks buying up foreign owned mortgage backed securities and rolling that into their own bailout. That seems to have been quashed. But credit card debt? Student loan debt? These are still on the table, and have no business being there. Also on the table, The losses incurred with the ownership of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Every one of these houses lost billions, and they want to include those losses in the bailout. That's right. Individuals that owned these stocks? Nada. But they deserve a bailout for holding those positions. Honestly, I think I'm starting to think like Ken here, because this is a huge scam, and out and out theft from the American public. Paulson and Bush are criminals in my mind. Also, this goes to show the absolute lack of imagination on the Bush administration with regard to crisis management. This bailout bill has been a poor idea from the start, and variations of this bill are just as bad. "Just throw money at it" is not a way to solve this. Not when the money is going to the investment banks. If it were going to the American people and American businesses, that would be one thing. It's not, and never can be with the bill set up as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 What was really telling this morning was Steny Hoyer basically saying we needed this because Americans can't live without credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I would like to know who these other measures are aimed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 What was really telling this morning was Steny Hoyer basically saying we needed this because Americans can't live without credit. That's just a really sad statement. It's probably close to true these days. Too many people live in debt and well above their means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I thought there was going to be bacon in here.....YOU SUCK!!!!!:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Pork is usually defined as wasteful spending so whether this bailout represents pork or not depends on whether its needed. That is too broad a definition. Pork is wasteful spending not associated with the intent of the bill. Under the definition you provide, every time someone votes against a bill because they don't like it, they can call it pork. These "sweetners" sound like pork. But voting on whether we should bailout Wall Street (and at least to some all of America) is not voting on pork. Its voting on a bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 I thought there was going to be bacon in here.....YOU SUCK!!!!!:mad:Nope only Turkey sausage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 What was really telling this morning was Steny Hoyer basically saying we needed this because Americans can't live without credit. Americans can't live without credit though.... what's your point? Small business need credit. Small businesses create jobs. Jobs employ individuals. The capitalist system that we aspire for relies on the availability of credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I am sure that some components of our society do need credit. People and businesses that are over-leveraged do need some help, but this bill (other than tiny $ pork provisions -- tiny in respect to the 700bn main prize) isn't aimed at them per se. It's directly aimed at the big companies that bought these financial instruments based entirely on the sub-prime loans, excessively leveraged, and worth way below the book value. These companies have told congress that they want them off their books now or they will go under and take everything down with them. They don't want discussion, they don't want a solution that works for everyone, they just want OUR MONEY NOW. and they are going to get it no matter what it takes http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=262667 Just look at the pork in the bill now, just look at what gets added to entice the Congressional Reps. It's hard for these guys to vote no under the pressure, with the underside of the Christmas tree packed with everything they have ever wanted. And it's all a scam to get your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Bingo. This is the problem with bailouts. No, this is the problem with Washington and the way our Congress operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 What was really telling this morning was Steny Hoyer basically saying we needed this because Americans can't live without credit. We can't. You seem to think Credit = Credit card debt and living beyond means. What about Car? Mortgage? Student Loans? Did you pay cash for your house? Can anybody (at least for a 1st house?) Do you think only those that can afford to pay cash for college should go to college? I know, many people worked their way through college. But part time wages have not kept up with cost of colleges now. You need to work your way just to afford room / board / textbooks / etc.... Let alone tuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 This bill is a complete joke and has made the leadership of both parties look completely worthless. Seriously, if you cannot pass the bill in its original form, without all the extra "sweeteners" and pork, then it probably shouldn't be passed. The fact that it could now pass with the add ons shows where congress' priorities are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 Americans can't live without credit though.... what's your point? Small business need credit. Small businesses create jobs. Jobs employ individuals.The capitalist system that we aspire for relies on the availability of credit. We can't. You seem to think Credit = Credit card debt and living beyond means. What about Car? Mortgage? Student Loans? Did you pay cash for your house? Can anybody (at least for a 1st house?) Do you think only those that can afford to pay cash for college should go to college? I know, many people worked their way through college. But part time wages have not kept up with cost of colleges now. You need to work your way just to afford room / board / textbooks / etc.... Let alone tuition. The context of his statement was about somebody buying a brand new washing machine. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Well I love Rum and Race Tracks so this is my kind of Pork. Although I will say in regards to credit. Going to school or buying a house is one thing, but people don't need "new" cars when you can drive an older one, have more money and still contribute. Small business can grow with the money they have earned instead of the money they "hope" to earn. That's a cop out IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 Did our economy at one time rely primarily on cash as opposed to credit like it does now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I think it just got a lot out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I found it funny the last 2 days that certain left wing members here thought this was anything more than an $800 Billion money grab by congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Did our economy at one time rely primarily on cash as opposed to credit like it does now? Considering that our country itself was extended quite a bit of credit from several European countries, I'd say no. There's nothing wrong with credit, IMO, what's wrong with it is people don't use it responsibly, hether that is a person living way above their means because they can keep rolling debt over or it is a bank lending people money who can't possibly pay it back. Credit is a good motivator. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.