Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (365485)	1/4/2008 1:34:45 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571785

Its true. I didn't think you cared about Democratic pork barrel spending. Thanks for confirming.

To: tejek who wrote (365485)	1/4/2008 1:42:27 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1571785

News from the Swamp: 2007 spending recap Congressional Democrats did a poor job of projecting an aura of fiscal responsibility in 2007. It was left to President George W. Bush, then, to rein in spending by issuing vetoes on profligate bonanzas like the politically popular SCHIP expansion. Earmarks did not die the well-deserved death that Democrats promised, either. Reform legislation was significantly watered down early in 2007, and efforts to shame lawmakers by publicly linking them to their earmark amendments fell flat. But since when was it possible to shame a congressman into spending less, anyway? The fate of the $555-billion omnibus spending package and the $459-billion defense bill remains undetermined, but, collectively, they contain 11,000 separate earmarks, including such gems as $100,000 for signage in L.A.’s fashion district, $250,000 for a culinary school in Washington State, and $213,000 for olive-fruit-fly research in France. (Yes, France.) The aforementioned defense-authorization bill received a pocket veto from President Bush over the Christmas holiday to the surprise of... well, everyone. A provision that opens up the Iraqi government to terror-victim lawsuits committed during Saddam Hussein’s rule caught the eye of the White House after negotiations had been wrapped up and the bill hit the President’s desk. President Bush asserts that opening up the fledgling Iraqi government to these lawsuits will cause problems they cannot afford. Democrats were outraged over the last-minute rejection, and it is unclear how much the bill will change otherwise if the provision is removed. President Bush can be proud of the fact that he stood firm in the face of repeated attempts by the MoveOn Democrats to tie Iraq war funding to unilateral troop withdrawals. These encroachments on the President’s constitutional power as Commander in Chief went nowhere, and the troops still got the funds they needed. The energy bill leaves much to be desired, however, with its ill-conceived plan to jack up automobile fuel-efficiency standards by 40 percent over 12 years. Also ignored is its impact on America’s automakers and the negligible effect it will have on perceived climate change. Congress also saw wisdom in investing billions of dollars in unproven and untested biofuel schemes that may not even be scientifically possible, let alone economically feasible.