Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Obama proves he's not Muslim by signing shutdown bill that has pork in it   (wtkr.com) divider line 71
    More: Followup, Muslims, Frank Lautenberg, water projects, Cost of Living Allowance, Ohio River, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

1782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2013 at 9:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-17 08:14:15 AM  
I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.
 
2013-10-17 09:22:10 AM  
Good headline.
 
2013-10-17 09:24:31 AM  
That's a groaner.
 
2013-10-17 09:26:13 AM  

ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.


Who gets to define 'subject'?
 
2013-10-17 09:27:48 AM  
All of that spending is urgently necessary (other than the Lautenberg bequest, which is just routine and customary), but it hasn't been previously available because of the idiotic sequester. Not pork.
 
2013-10-17 09:28:20 AM  
I'm OK with this.  The government is spending money on infrastructure and safety regulations, oh no
 
2013-10-17 09:28:50 AM  

ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.


"This one is on the subject of how much additional spending we can tack onto a debt expansion bill. See, before, we did it two parts - spend the money, and then pay for it, but now we want to do it all at once."
 
2013-10-17 09:29:41 AM  

Ned Stark: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

Who gets to define 'subject'?


Supreme court if it were a constitutional provision.  So a subject would end up about as narrow as "interstate commerce".
 
2013-10-17 09:29:51 AM  
We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.
 
2013-10-17 09:32:23 AM  
Once again Ballsack Obangbus proves he is a taxandspendocrat.  He should have vetoed this outrageous spending bill
 
2013-10-17 09:34:17 AM  

Skleenar: Once again Ballsack Obangbus proves he is a taxandspendocrat.  He should have vetoed this outrageous spending bill


OK that made me laugh.
 
2013-10-17 09:35:06 AM  

Ned Stark: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

Who gets to define 'subject'?


Bill Clinton.
 
2013-10-17 09:35:22 AM  

ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.


To be honest, this is nothing more than a spending bill. Thus "Spending Money" is the subject.
 
2013-10-17 09:35:51 AM  
"Friends, do not be discouraged by the shenanigans of D.C's permanent political class today. Be energized. We're going to shake things up in 2014! Rest well tonight, for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races. Let's start with Kentucky which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi from sea to shining sea we will not give up. We've only just begun to fight!"

www.newrepublic.com
 
2013-10-17 09:36:33 AM  
Now I'm all hungry for a pulled pork sammich.
 
2013-10-17 09:37:08 AM  

Wendy's Chili: We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.


Exactly.  When you have nothing to offer a congressman to support a bill that does nada for them or their district, the Congressman has no incentive to support it.
 
2013-10-17 09:37:34 AM  
Barcock Fartlingus needs some bootstrap pork in the bills he signs.

Bootstraps from Heaven!  Bootstraps for all!
 
2013-10-17 09:37:59 AM  
So death benefits to a widow (which the author has some problem with); no pay increase for useless Congressmen, flood relief, and infrastructure development
10/10 Subby, made me read and reply
 
2013-10-17 09:39:16 AM  

Skleenar: Once again Ballsack Obangbus proves he is a taxandspendocrat.  He should have vetoed this outrageous spending bill


Isn't that GWAR's new guitarist?
 
2013-10-17 09:39:37 AM  

DubyaHater: So death benefits to a widow (which the author has some problem with); no pay increase for useless Congressmen, flood relief, and infrastructure development
10/10 Subby, made me read and reply


Just goes to show, the Democrats were so dominant in this last row with the GOP over the debt ceiling, the Democrats forced them to accept not just pork for their Senate leader that the TP hates, but also increased regulation on a number of fronts.

Well done, gents.
 
2013-10-17 09:42:10 AM  

Lost Thought 00: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

To be honest, this is nothing more than a spending bill. Thus "Spending Money" is the subject.


The whole point is that this wasn't a spending bill.  Congress already authorized spending the money.  This was a funding bill:  Funding the government so it is no longer shut down, and raising the debt ceiling so we have funds to pay what was already authorized by law.

Actually, at this point I'm not completely sure whether averting stopping the government shutdown is a funding bill or a spending bill.  The debt ceiling increase is completely about funding, though.
 
2013-10-17 09:42:34 AM  
FTA "Agencies that fight wildfires could get as much as $636 million, depending on how bad it gets in the next year."

Those monsters!
 
2013-10-17 09:43:26 AM  
Beecock Bananaphone O'Nambla
 
2013-10-17 09:43:34 AM  
1. RIVER PROJECT
Infrastructure investment. Not pork
2. FLOOD RECOVERY FUNDS
Colorado is a state, we take care of our own, fark you for calling it pork
3. LATE SENATOR'S WIDOW
This one is a standard benefit given to widows of deceased congress critters.
4. OTHER WINNERS
A couple million dollars. Who can count it?
5. SAME PAY FOR CONGRESS
No pay raise for congress is pork?

/cry moar
 
2013-10-17 09:43:42 AM  

satanorsanta: I'm OK with this.  The government is spending money on infrastructure and safety regulations, oh no


I wish we would cut defense and re-appropriate to infrastructure projects. Put people to work in a New Deal fashion.
 
2013-10-17 09:44:37 AM  

Jaymark108: Actually, at this point I'm not completely sure whether averting stopping the government shutdown is a funding bill or a spending bill. The debt ceiling increase is completely about funding, though.


The CR is a funding bill, agreeing to fund the government at current levels.
 
2013-10-17 09:45:53 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-10-17 09:47:09 AM  

Ned Stark: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

Who gets to define 'subject'?


In South Carolina, the State Supreme Court.

We had a string of laws a few years back which violated that rule in our state constitution.  The court got in the habit of tossing out the entire law, not just excising the pork or single line of abortion restrictions.  Politicians got pissed when they found out their entire bill of appropriating money for highway construction was tossed out because their was a single line at the end that said "oh, and we're also going to build a sweet potato museum in bumfark, SC".  They took the position that the court should have only tossed out the off-subject parts and left the rest intact.

The courts response?  "We couldn't tell which parts was the main subject, and which was the unconstitutional add-on.  So we tossed them both.  Which we were required to do by the Constitution you amended."
 
2013-10-17 09:47:40 AM  
I want bacon.

(of course I want ANY food right now. 12 hours into a 36 hour "clear liquid" diet.  have pity)
 
2013-10-17 09:50:52 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: I want bacon.

(of course I want ANY food right now. 12 hours into a 36 hour "clear liquid" diet.  have pity)


Vodak counts as a diet now?
 
2013-10-17 09:53:28 AM  

mbillips: Not pork.


Everything's pork unless I benefit!
 
2013-10-17 09:53:39 AM  

Kristoph57: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I want bacon.

(of course I want ANY food right now. 12 hours into a 36 hour "clear liquid" diet.  have pity)

Vodak counts as a diet now?


I wish!  My doc knows me well enough to SPECIFICALLY address that with me.....*sigh*

b-b-b-b-b-b-ut vodak and beer ARE clear!!!!!
 
MFK
2013-10-17 09:55:07 AM  
I really think we need to re-evaluate our attitudes on "pork". I think a good chunk of our current nightmarish gridlock stems from when we started to make "pork" a dirty word. For decades the wheels of government were greased with pork. Rep Smith (D) could go to Rep Jones (R) and solicit support for some social program by agreeing to vote for a highway project in Rep Jones' district. That way when Rep Jones' primary challenger lambasts his vote for a social program, Jones can say to his constituents "Ok, so i may have voted for this social program, BUT look at this amazing new highway project that has improved everyone's lives". Improving one's district goes a long way with moderate pragmatists of either party and the politicians weren't forced to pander to the extreme fringes.

But then it got out of control and Congress got stupid about it and people were justifiably pissed off (ie: bridge to nowhere, etc) and all of a sudden, pork became a bad thing and Congress immediately started using these pet projects as a cudgel to beat up the other party with. Well what happened was that with the sudden inability for these Congresspeople to bring home the proverbial bacon, all they were left with was their farking principles which you can never compromise on because then what have you got?

Now we're left with this stupid farking Congress who can't agree on anything because they've got nothing to compromise with.
 
2013-10-17 09:55:27 AM  
It goes well with his cloven hooves.
 
2013-10-17 09:56:35 AM  

Ned Stark: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

Who gets to define 'subject'?


More importantly: who gets to define 'single'?
 
2013-10-17 09:56:39 AM  

kidgenius: satanorsanta: I'm OK with this.  The government is spending money on infrastructure and safety regulations, oh no

I wish we would cut defense and re-appropriate to infrastructure projects. Put people to work in a New Deal fashion.


What are you talking about? There has been all kinds of infrastructure projects* in the Defense project.

*: For Afghanistan and Iraq. To be completed by independent contractors making five times what they would earn for the same thing in America.
 
2013-10-17 09:57:15 AM  

clkeagle: kidgenius: satanorsanta: I'm OK with this.  The government is spending money on infrastructure and safety regulations, oh no

I wish we would cut defense and re-appropriate to infrastructure projects. Put people to work in a New Deal fashion.

What are you talking about? There has been all kinds of infrastructure projects* in the Defense project budget.

*: For Afghanistan and Iraq. To be completed by independent contractors making five times what they would earn for the same thing in America.


FTFM
 
2013-10-17 10:01:46 AM  
 
2013-10-17 10:07:40 AM  
Yeah. I'm fine with them using money to fix dams and fight fires.

/the widow thing is a bit much, but its only a year.
 
2013-10-17 10:14:53 AM  
You gotta admit, that's a kick ass headline
 
2013-10-17 10:17:05 AM  

ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.


You think a budget should only fund one thing at a time?

So we would have to pass thousands of bills to pass a spending bill? Maybe you didn't think this through.

A CR is a spending bill so why do you think spending shouldn't be in it?
 
2013-10-17 10:17:50 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Kristoph57: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I want bacon.

(of course I want ANY food right now. 12 hours into a 36 hour "clear liquid" diet.  have pity)

Vodak counts as a diet now?

I wish!  My doc knows me well enough to SPECIFICALLY address that with me.....*sigh*

b-b-b-b-b-b-ut vodak and beer ARE clear!!!!!


Your doctor is a moron if that "clear liquid diet" doesn't have to do with fasting for a blood test or surgery prep.
 
2013-10-17 10:19:32 AM  

Jaymark108: Lost Thought 00: ZAZ: I wish we had a single subject rule at the federal level. In many states a bill has to be limited to a single subject.

To be honest, this is nothing more than a spending bill. Thus "Spending Money" is the subject.

The whole point is that this wasn't a spending bill.  Congress already authorized spending the money.  This was a funding bill:  Funding the government so it is no longer shut down, and raising the debt ceiling so we have funds to pay what was already authorized by law.

Actually, at this point I'm not completely sure whether averting stopping the government shutdown is a funding bill or a spending bill.  The debt ceiling increase is completely about funding, though.


Really we didn't have a government shutdown the last couple weeks because there was no spending bill? Maybe you can tell me friends who weren't getting paid that was the case.
 
2013-10-17 10:23:55 AM  

MFK: I really think we need to re-evaluate our attitudes on "pork". I think a good chunk of our current nightmarish gridlock stems from when we started to make "pork" a dirty word. For decades the wheels of government were greased with pork. Rep Smith (D) could go to Rep Jones (R) and solicit support for some social program by agreeing to vote for a highway project in Rep Jones' district. That way when Rep Jones' primary challenger lambasts his vote for a social program, Jones can say to his constituents "Ok, so i may have voted for this social program, BUT look at this amazing new highway project that has improved everyone's lives". Improving one's district goes a long way with moderate pragmatists of either party and the politicians weren't forced to pander to the extreme fringes.

But then it got out of control and Congress got stupid about it and people were justifiably pissed off (ie: bridge to nowhere, etc) and all of a sudden, pork became a bad thing and Congress immediately started using these pet projects as a cudgel to beat up the other party with. Well what happened was that with the sudden inability for these Congresspeople to bring home the proverbial bacon, all they were left with was their farking principles which you can never compromise on because then what have you got?

Now we're left with this stupid farking Congress who can't agree on anything because they've got nothing to compromise with.


And of course the interesting thing is that such pork disproportionately tends to benefit rural states, because they have disproportionate representation (especially in the Senate of course). This is why it makes sense that it was the "bridge to nowhere" that kicked it all off - Alaska obviously has the funds to run its own infrastructure projects where they are really needed, so when their votes are needed you tend to be really scraping the barrel of very low cost-benefit projects.
 
2013-10-17 10:28:03 AM  

MFK: I really think we need to re-evaluate our attitudes on "pork". I think a good chunk of our current nightmarish gridlock stems from when we started to make "pork" a dirty word. For decades the wheels of government were greased with pork. Rep Smith (D) could go to Rep Jones (R) and solicit support for some social program by agreeing to vote for a highway project in Rep Jones' district. That way when Rep Jones' primary challenger lambasts his vote for a social program, Jones can say to his constituents "Ok, so i may have voted for this social program, BUT look at this amazing new highway project that has improved everyone's lives". Improving one's district goes a long way with moderate pragmatists of either party and the politicians weren't forced to pander to the extreme fringes.

But then it got out of control and Congress got stupid about it and people were justifiably pissed off (ie: bridge to nowhere, etc) and all of a sudden, pork became a bad thing and Congress immediately started using these pet projects as a cudgel to beat up the other party with. Well what happened was that with the sudden inability for these Congresspeople to bring home the proverbial bacon, all they were left with was their farking principles which you can never compromise on because then what have you got?

Now we're left with this stupid farking Congress who can't agree on anything because they've got nothing to compromise with.


This, although I'm not so sure that we could bring it back.  Even back in 1994 the raving loonies were getting to voters.

During the months before the 1994 election, I authored, and President Clinton signed into law, legislation that provided product liability protection for small-airplane manufacturers. This legislation saved thousands of jobs in my district and across Kansas. Soon after the law was signed, Cessna Aircraft reopened its single-engine aircraft assembly line.
During the campaign, I was out in the district knocking on my constituents' doors and I stopped by the home of a worker at one of those aircraft plants. He congratulated me on the bill and told me that I saved his job. You can imagine my amazement when the next thing he said to me was that he could not support me in the coming election.
Shocked, I asked him why, and his answer was simple. "Guns," he said. He told me that using firearms was a key element of enjoying his life. And when I commented that I wasn't interested in taking his guns away from him - and only wanted to stop the sale of assault weapons - he firmly told me that it was not my business to tell him what kinds of guns he should be able to purchase and use.
Over the next several weeks, that story was replicated many, many times in interactions with my constituents.



I"m afraid that level of derp has only skyrocketed since then.
 
2013-10-17 10:31:01 AM  

Wendy's Chili: We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.


We really do. Earmarks are how congress wheels and deals. In the past, legislators who pulled This crap wouldn't be able to get anything done; their colleagues wouldn't deal with them.
 
2013-10-17 10:31:39 AM  

djRykoSuave: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Kristoph57: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I want bacon.

(of course I want ANY food right now. 12 hours into a 36 hour "clear liquid" diet.  have pity)

Vodak counts as a diet now?

I wish!  My doc knows me well enough to SPECIFICALLY address that with me.....*sigh*

b-b-b-b-b-b-ut vodak and beer ARE clear!!!!!

Your doctor is a moron if that "clear liquid diet" doesn't have to do with fasting for a blood test or surgery prep.


surgery darling, I'm not a moron either.
 
2013-10-17 10:35:05 AM  

Crocodilly_Pontifex: Wendy's Chili: We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.

We really do. Earmarks are how congress wheels and deals. In the past, legislators who pulled This crap wouldn't be able to get anything done; their colleagues wouldn't deal with them.


Not to mention that earmarks don't increase spending, they only direct where the spending must go, rather than leaving it at the discretion of the President.
 
2013-10-17 10:36:05 AM  

Larry Mahnken: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Wendy's Chili: We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.

We really do. Earmarks are how congress wheels and deals. In the past, legislators who pulled This crap wouldn't be able to get anything done; their colleagues wouldn't deal with them.

Not to mention that earmarks don't increase spending, they only direct where the spending must go, rather than leaving it at the discretion of the President.


Well, if the President has the discretion, doesn't that give a rather obvious solution?
 
2013-10-17 10:46:13 AM  

pueblonative: Larry Mahnken: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Wendy's Chili: We need to bring back pork. Nothing has gotten done since we got rid of it.

We really do. Earmarks are how congress wheels and deals. In the past, legislators who pulled This crap wouldn't be able to get anything done; their colleagues wouldn't deal with them.

Not to mention that earmarks don't increase spending, they only direct where the spending must go, rather than leaving it at the discretion of the President.

Well, if the President has the discretion, doesn't that give a rather obvious solution?


Impeachment?
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report