DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on September 29, 2008, 09:18:43 PM
-
McCain's been claiming leadership for 48 hours and the house Republicans betray him.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/29/bailout-mccain/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/29/bailout-mccain/)
House Republicans vote against bill because Pelosi hurt their wittle feewings.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/
(http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/)
But then she didn't say ANYTHING that could even be construed as insulting or demeaning to the GOP. Even ED ROLLINS couldn't find it!
http://thepage.time.com/rep-pelosis-remarks-on-floor-ahead-of-house-bailout-vote/
(http://thepage.time.com/rep-pelosis-remarks-on-floor-ahead-of-house-bailout-vote/)
Sarah Palin does an interview with Katie Couric and sounds like a babbling nutjob, then Tina Fey goes on SNL and does a bit re-creating it and USES PALIN'S OWN WORDS NEARLY EXACTLY and the audience roars with laughter thinking it was a bit. Crazy!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZTNE_sDWEiDRuzDxQxUXxLuLkmAD93FRGQ00 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZTNE_sDWEiDRuzDxQxUXxLuLkmAD93FRGQ00)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/09/post-5.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/09/post-5.html)
-
95 dems (41% of their rank and file) voted against the bill even after being urged to do so by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. This is the same bill Obama said should pass. The bill failed by 18 votes. If one third of those dem naysayers voted with their party leaders it would have passed.
-
"Wow, what a horrible day for McCain, the Right"
not by the look on democrats faces
it's always easy to know when we are winning
because the democrats have that death warmed over look
it's funny the headlines are: dems and bush go down together
so not only did the dems lose they got bunched in with bush
not the look of someone that is winning!
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080929/capt.09bde547afd34e3680c8c05981bbdc56.congress_financial_meltdown_dclj105.jpg?x=400&y=309&q=85&sig=uYU.pi1ZflCN3jeTTurcmw--)
-
The fact that the fool bill did not pass was more the fault of the Republicans than th Democrats. You should be blaming them.
-
The fact that the fool bill did not pass was more the fault of the Republicans than th Democrats. You should be blaming them.
Yeah i guess you should give the GOP credit. Perhaps they learned a lesson from other hastily passed acts like the ones immediately following 9/11.
Homeland Security comes to mind.
-
95 dems (41% of their rank and file) voted against the bill even after being urged to do so by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. This is the same bill Obama said should pass. The bill failed by 18 votes. If one third of those dem naysayers voted with their party leaders it would have passed.
Wah.
As I understand it, the Dems said they would deliver 140 votes for it, and they did. Yet fully two thirds of the Republicans voted against it, 65 yes and 133 no. If just 12 of those Republicans had voted the other way, the vote would have been 217-216 and the bill would have passed. Seems the Dems kept their part of the deal - where were the Republicans, McCain's own party, when he needed them to stand up for him?
And very quickly after the result was announced, the finger pointing began - by the Republicans. Some spirit of bipartisanship. I hope the Dems do sink it next time, for good. I figure the members of the House, who have to stand for reelection this year - every one of them - listened to the phone calls, emails and text messages they've been getting from their constituents. As I understand it, the public is against the bailout 55 percent to 45.
-
If it is a bad act why did 140 dems vote for it? Why did Pelosi and Frank push it?
Most of the people i have spoken with about this think the market should correct itself and let the chips fall where they may.
I feel for the potential collateral damage, but whatcha gonna do.
-
Yeah i guess you should give the GOP credit. Perhaps they learned a lesson from other hastily passed acts like the ones immediately following 9/11.
Homeland Security comes to mind.
Damn, I hope so! I don't like this bailout. It stinks. As Pat Buchanan noted, we're trusting the same people who screwed the thing up in the beginning to fix it in the end. Nor do I like the way that the Administration and some in Congress are clamoring that it has to be RIGHT NOW!! RIGHT THIS MINUTE!! NO DELAY!! The last time I heard this, the Patriot Act was passed, and I'm pretty sure that I've made my feelings known about that piece of shit legislation.
So personally, I say kudos to those Dems and Repubs that bucked their leadership and voted for what their constituentcies wanted. In a lot of ways, I think that the panic on Wall St today was brought about by this whole bill. If AIG had failed, would we have had the largest drop in a day? Or Bear Stearns or any of the others that are being bailed out or having moderated sales? I doubt it, but then again I'm not an economist. It just seems to me this whole thing has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the people who fucked the thing up to start with get to claim to be modern day oracles when they don't get their way.
I don't know if this thing is going to get worse, or if it's going to get better. Nor do I particularly care to assign the blame to one party or the other, they're both in this up to their necks. I'm just hoping they don't take me with when they drown in it.
-
Yeah i guess you should give the GOP credit. Perhaps they learned a lesson from other hastily passed acts like the ones immediately following 9/11.
Homeland Security comes to mind.
========================================
IUt may come to your mind, but I think they are still all for it
-
95 dems (41% of their rank and file) voted against the bill even after being urged to do so by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. This is the same bill Obama said should pass. The bill failed by 18 votes. If one third of those dem naysayers voted with their party leaders it would have passed.
Wah. As I understand it, the Dems said they would deliver 140 votes for it, and they did.
And as I understand it, the Democrats are in the majority, and could have passed it without GOP support of any kind. The fact is this is a BIPARTISAN DEFEAT. So trying to cry and lay claim that this failure to pass this sloppy piece of legislation as the Republican's fault, is disengenuous in the least. But since I'm glad it failed, sure...lets give the GOP the credit on stopping a rushed piece of legislation simply because congress supposedly needs "to do something"
And very quickly after the result was announced, the finger pointing began - by the Republicans. Some spirit of bipartisanship.
You mean the one that started with Nancy Pelosi claiming how unpatrioitic it was for GOP to not come to the table, in the 1st place?? If you want to start pointing fingers H, best start on the left
-
"the Democrats are in the majority, and could have passed it without GOP support of any kind"
they want "cover" so they dont want to pass it on their own without the republicans giving them cover
-
If they voted the way their constituents wanted, that is an adequate justification, especially if they are not themselves convinced that this is the best bill they can pass.
The GOP deserves a rap on the merrythought, though, for trying to sneak a corporate tax giveaway on this bill.
If they want a tax break, they can vote on it separately.
-
Karl Roves nails the Democrats and Pelosi!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGpxUEN4RU[/youtube]
-
Most of the people i have spoken with about this think the market should correct itself and let the chips fall where they may.
You can put me in that group. What have you seen happening the last few days when some firm goes tits up? Someone else steps in and buys them out. The problem seems to be handling itself, except for all those whiners who expect the government to come in like the cavalry and save their bacon. They've got the stock market jittery, but it has a habit of sorting itself out.
And as I understand it, the Democrats are in the majority, and could have passed it without GOP support of any kind.
Did you also notice most of the Dems did vote for it, while the majority - over 2/3 - of the Republicans voted against it?
You mean the one that started with Nancy Pelosi claiming how unpatrioitic it was for GOP to not come to the table, in the 1st place??
Nope, I mean the whining after the vote was taken, when the next news cycle on CNN I heard the Republicans were crying that Pelosi's speech turned 12 Republicans against it that were ready to vote for it. Whatsisname, Frank(?), told them to point the 12 out to him and he would personally have a nice gentle talk with them to turn them back around. Damn, if Florida would hold open primaries, I'd switch back to an independant rather than registering as a Republican. Neither one of the major parties is worth a damn anymore.
Karl Roves nails the Democrats and Pelosi!
Karl Rove is lucky to find his ass with both hands and a six man search party.
-
And as I understand it, the Democrats are in the majority, and could have passed it without GOP support of any kind.
Did you also notice most of the Dems did vote for it, while the majority - over 2/3 - of the Republicans voted against it?
Wow...something to congratulate the GOP on for a change. Point remains unrefuted however, this was a bipartisan defeat, and disengenuous to make some inferrence that the dastardly republicans were behind its defeat
You mean the one that started with Nancy Pelosi claiming how unpatrioitic it was for GOP to not come to the table, in the 1st place??
Nope, I mean the whining after the vote was taken,
ahhh, I thought we were referring to when the partisan finger pointing started.....which would be before the vote was even taken. Perhaps had Mrs Pelosi practiced what she so often preached, civility and bipartisanship, there may have been a different outcome after the vote
-
The obligation of the congressperson is to vote for what they think is the good of the country or what their constituents tell them. Anyone who votes against a bill because some speech offended their ego is simply an ass. That would apply to any party.
This stuff about how 12 Republicans changed their vote, if indeed is true, indicates that 12 Republicans are asses.
-
The fact that the fool bill did not pass was more the fault of the Republicans than th Democrats. You should be blaming them.
Yeah i guess you should give the GOP credit. Perhaps they learned a lesson from other hastily passed acts like the ones immediately following 9/11.
Homeland Security comes to mind.
This is great! You acknowledge that they know Bushidiot is a liar and a fool and they should know .They are closer to the freak.
-
Homeland Security comes to mind.
Homeland Security, as the behemoth that passed, was a dem creation.
-
and only one democrat voted against the Patriot Act!
-
Wow...something to congratulate the GOP on for a change.
That might be the only thing we agree about.
... disengenuous to make some inferrence that the dastardly republicans were behind its defeat ...
I think the Republicans are particularly disingenuous to make the inference that some who would have voted for it voted against it simply because of Pelosi's speech. Or would they stifle her right to speak her mind, as she is allowed to do by the rules of order? Having a conniption fit and changing their vote because of some imagined slight certainly don't do anything to create the image they are fit to represent their constituents. Might as well put a group of kiddygarteners in there.
-
While I think it's particularli dissengenuus for the head of the house to preech won thing, while practising somethin completely polor, and cri about the reppercusions. Witch again took place be4 the vote. But your probablee wright about Pelosi acting as a kindergardener, spoilt that she didnt git her way
-
So do you think they voted for what they thought was best for their constituents, or did they vote against what they believed was right because they were in a snit? And which would you rather have representing you?
-
Homeland Security comes to mind.
Homeland Security, as the behemoth that passed, was a dem creation.
Wow And I thought you guys had all 3 branches of govt in those days. Those Dems musta been sumthin.
-
Wow And I thought you guys had all 3 branches of govt in those days. Those Dems musta been sumthin.
You would be wrong. Remember the Jefferds defection?
-
Wow And I thought you guys had all 3 branches of govt in those days. Those Dems musta been sumthin.
You would be wrong. Remember the Jefferds defection?
I can admit a mistake, but this isnt one. As I remember Jeffords made the senate 50/50 and Cheney the Golum VP casts a vote when the Senate is tied.
(http://cache.thephoenix.com/i/OldBlogs/OutsideTheFrame/gollum.jpg)
-
You remember wrong. Daschle wouldn't have been Senate Majority Leader if it were 50-50.
-
So do you think they voted for what they thought was best for their constituents, or did they vote against what they believed was right because they were in a snit? And which would you rather have representing you?
Possibly both, though given the 2:1 reporting I read before of citizens opposed to it, is very likely to be the former, made easier to have been made by the latter. And since it was voted down, I'm pleased, regardless of their reasoning
-
You remember wrong. Daschle wouldn't have been Senate Majority Leader if it were 50-50.
Wait a minute. Are we still talking about the Homeland Securty Act? It was passed when Tent Lott was Majority leader.You trying to muddy the waters again?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1121/p01s03-usju.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1121/p01s03-usju.html)
-
Are we still talking about the Homeland Securty Act? It was passed when Tent Lott was Majority leader.
Daschle was the Senate Majority leader in 2002.
From the Senate history:
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Majority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)
Minority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)
Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2 (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2)
-
Are we still talking about the Homeland Securty Act? It was passed when Tent Lott was Majority leader.
Daschle was the Senate Majority leader in 2002.
From the Senate history:
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Majority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)
Minority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)
Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2 (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm#2)
Exactly . And Trent Lott was Majority Leader when the Homeland Security Law was passed. So the Dems did not create that piece of shit. The one Dem that spnsored an earlier version is now an Ind and kisses Repub asses now, Joe Leiberman.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html)
-
Exactly . And Trent Lott was Majority Leader when the Homeland Security Law was passed. So the Dems did not create that piece of shit. The one Dem that spnsored an earlier version is now an Ind and kisses Repub asses now, Joe Leiberman.
Err, so in your twisted little universe, Homeland Security was passed between January 20th, 2001 and June 5th, 2001 (the dates that Lott was Majority leader)? Because in the real universe, it didn't pass until 2002, well after Daschle had become Majority Leader.
-
Exactly . And Trent Lott was Majority Leader when the Homeland Security Law was passed. So the Dems did not create that piece of shit. The one Dem that spnsored an earlier version is now an Ind and kisses Repub asses now, Joe Leiberman.
Err, so in your twisted little universe, Homeland Security was passed between January 20th, 2001 and June 5th, 2001 (the dates that Lott was Majority leader)? Because in the real universe, it didn't pass until 2002, well after Daschle had become Majority Leader.
Not the point at all. BT said
>Homeland Security, as the behemoth that passed, was a dem creation.<
It was clear that the bill was going to pass in Nov of 2001
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1121/p01s03-usju.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1121/p01s03-usju.html)
The main Dem that had input was that traitor Leiberman.
>Bi-partisan? Lieberman sponsored S. 2452, an earlier version of the Homeland Security Act, which was absorbed into HR 5710, the final version that passed the House.<
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html)
So once again you are supplying wortless "facts" which are wortless because they lack context and are designed to mislead like all Repub facts seem to be anymore.
-
Not the point at all. BT said
>Homeland Security, as the behemoth that passed, was a dem creation.<
It was clear that the bill was going to pass in Nov of 2001
And in November of 2001, Daschle was the Senate Majority Leader.
You have a point?
-
Apparently this:
I can admit a mistake, but this isnt one.
is an untruth.
-
Not the point at all. BT said
>Homeland Security, as the behemoth that passed, was a dem creation.<
It was clear that the bill was going to pass in Nov of 2001
And in November of 2001, Daschle was the Senate Majority Leader.
You have a point?
Yes the point is that you are again harping on an anal non-point. The Homeland Security Act was not a Dem creation no matter who was Majority Leader was
-
Apparently this:
I can admit a mistake, but this isnt one.
is an untruth.
Is a mistake about being mistaken about an irrelevant deflection.
-
Yes the point is that you are again harping on an anal non-point. The Homeland Security Act was not a Dem creation no matter who was Majority Leader was
Then why did you make a point of harping on the fact that Lott was the Majority Leader at the time it passed when it wasn't true?
-
Is a mistake about being mistaken about an irrelevant deflection.
A mistake is a mistake.
A lie is when you said you would admit a mistake when you make them.
You said the GOP held all three branches.
You were mistaken.
Lieberman and the dems wanted the creation of a cabinet level bureaucracy.
Bush wanted it to be run by the VP's office,
The HSA was a dem creation as passed.
-
Is a mistake about being mistaken about an irrelevant deflection.
A mistake is a mistake.
A lie is when you said you would admit a mistake when you make them.
You said the GOP held all three branches.
You were mistaken.
Lieberman and the dems wanted the creation of a cabinet level bureaucracy.
Bush wanted it to be run by the VP's office,
The HSA was a dem creation as passed.
And we are certainly lucky that it was or we would have given even more power to the evil one to fuck things up even worse.
(http://cache.thephoenix.com/i/OldBlogs/OutsideTheFrame/gollum.jpg)
-
i sure hope he learned his lesson: "DONT MESS WITH AMIANTHUS"
even i dont like taggling with dat rascal!
-
i sure hope he learned his lesson: "DONT MESS WITH AMIANTHUS"
even i dont like taggling with dat rascal!
Ya win a few and ya lose a few. I have won more than my share with the idiot savant.
-
i sure hope he learned his lesson: "DONT MESS WITH AMIANTHUS" even i dont like taggling with dat rascal!
Ya win a few and ya lose a few. I have won more than my share with the idiot savant.
:D Name 1
-
"Ya win a few and ya lose a few. I have won more than my share with the idiot savant"
yeah knutey and ya learn alot too.
this message board for as much as we "hate on each other" is educational
-
i sure hope he learned his lesson: "DONT MESS WITH AMIANTHUS" even i dont like taggling with dat rascal!
Ya win a few and ya lose a few. I have won more than my share with the idiot savant.
:D Name 1
The one where I proved that points are indeed interest but you probly dont think so because you dont have the savant part.
-
"Ya win a few and ya lose a few. I have won more than my share with the idiot savant"
yeah knutey and ya learn alot too.
this message board for as much as we "hate on each other" is educational
Maybe for you , but for me it is fun & games with RW morons.
-
come on knutey, ya just admitted ya got schooled by one of those "right wing morons" so ya had to learn something!
-
come on knutey, ya just admitted ya got schooled by one of those "right wing morons" so ya had to learn something!
He didnt teach me anything. I already knew I could be wrong about something.Usually insignificant "facts" in which Ami specializes. That is the savant part. He can probly add up all the numbers an a passing railroad train and be right, but it doesnt mean anything.
-
The one where I proved that points are indeed interest but you probly dont think so because you dont have the savant part.
Origination fees ("points") are as much interest as mortgage insurance premiums. In other words, they're not.
-
Origination fees ("points") are as much interest as mortgage insurance premiums. In other words, they're not.
They are based on th amount of the loan and are added to the amount owed.
Basically they are a bribe to get the bank to accept the mortgage. The borrower gets nothing in exchange for points.
-
The one where I proved that points are indeed interest but you probly dont think so because you dont have the savant part.
Origination fees ("points") are as much interest as mortgage insurance premiums. In other words, they're not.
So much for that "1"
-
The borrower gets nothing in exchange for points.
The borrower gets a reduced interest rate for points.
-
The borrower gets nothing in exchange for points.
The borrower gets a reduced interest rate for points.
=========================================
The bank says the loan is x.x% and x points, take it or leave it.
The bank does not offer any alternative. You pay the rate, or you walk out the door and get no loan.
You pay the points or you walk out the door and no loan.
This may not be what the bank official says, but that is the way it is.
You'd have better luck negotiating the price of a beer in a biker bar.
-
The bank says the loan is x.x% and x points, take it or leave it.
The bank does not offer any alternative. You pay the rate, or you walk out the door and get no loan.
You pay the points or you walk out the door and no loan.
Not in my experience. The lender always offered several options, some with points, some without. The options with points were always a lower interest rate. I took these when I could get the seller to cough up the points.
-
The one where I proved that points are indeed interest but you probly dont think so because you dont have the savant part.
Origination fees ("points") are as much interest as mortgage insurance premiums. In other words, they're not.
Due to the request of one of the few near normal in this forum I am not going to discuss your favorite topic, you , anymore after I say this. You must be a very insecure person to continue to insist on having to be right even in the face of overwhelming proof and nearly universal acceptance of your wrongness. Truly rich folks do not need to showoff their wealth and truly intelligent fols dont feel compelled to display their intelligence either. This weakness will eventually lead to your disastrous failure and the higher you go the greater the failure will be. The best example of this is your hero the Bushidiot.He is an stubborn fool but rose to the highest office in the land by hook and by crook. He has since fallen to the lowest approval of any Pres and will go down in history as the most despised. This is because he is unable to admit a mistake and continues to torture reality , the truth and even people to insist on his rightness. Sadly , this is the fate awaits you or anyone that twists and distorts the truth for their own ego gratification.I feel very sorry for you.
-
Okay, so, where were we?
So do you think they voted for what they thought was best for their constituents, or did they vote against what they believed was right because they were in a snit? And which would you rather have representing you?
Possibly both, though given the 2:1 reporting I read before of citizens opposed to it, is very likely to be the former, made easier to have been made by the latter. And since it was voted down, I'm pleased, regardless of their reasoning
I can deal with that. I'm glad it was voted down as well, though I would rather have a representative who voted for what he thought was right than one who voted against something he thought was right, simply because he had his knickers in a wad.
-
Glad we have some concensus
-
Okay, so, where were we?
So do you think they voted for what they thought was best for their constituents, or did they vote against what they believed was right because they were in a snit? And which would you rather have representing you?
Possibly both, though given the 2:1 reporting I read before of citizens opposed to it, is very likely to be the former, made easier to have been made by the latter. And since it was voted down, I'm pleased, regardless of their reasoning
I can deal with that. I'm glad it was voted down as well, though I would rather have a representative who voted for what he thought was right than one who voted against something he thought was right, simply because he had his knickers in a wad.
I have heard that most of the votes against were cast by Representatives faceing tough opposition , votes for tended to be from Representatives in secure seats.
The idea being , I want this to pass , but I don't want the baggage in my campaign.
I am not certain that this is true , but it would explain the sensitivity to Nancy Pelosi's partizenship...
...
and it would place the real blame for the hard time the bill is haveing on disgruntled and griping voters.
I kinda like the idea of griping voters tipping the marginal votes and having such a major effect.
One thing I do not like about this bill is that it is growing into a christmass tree , lots of pork has been taped onto it to make it tasty to reps individually. If it is reallythat important to do , why does it need the sweetener?
-
One thing I do not like about this bill is that it is growing into a christmass tree , lots of pork has been taped onto it to make it tasty to reps individually. If it is reallythat important to do , why does it need the sweetener?
The bill is a HUGE piece of pork as it stands. It's free money to bail out people who proved that they were not to be trusted with money in the first place. They had money, and they lent it to people with money down, many of whom had no income or other assets.hey lost a bundle and need more to operate with, and they are going to borrow it, most likely from the Chinese, and stick us all with both the principle and interest, to pay for it. It's not a Christas tree with pieces of pork attached.
It's a huge pork tree, with pieces of lesser pork attached.
The extras are to get more Reps. to vote for it. They refused last time, remember?