• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$2 billion ‘kentucky kickback’ in budget

You're dead wrong and you jnow you are, son.

How am I wrong, you have yet to provide ANY proof that the majority of he left wants NO offensive capability of the military.

You can't back you're **** up son and can't man up to admit you are wrong. Your partisan hackery comments are just that, hack comments and nothing more. You're dismissed liar.
 
Haven't read the whole thread, but hasn't anybody noticed that it was not McConnell that inserted the language re:funding amounts and this project, it was Feinstein [D Calif ] and Alexander [R Tenn]...

"For one thing, McConnell apparently did not request that funding for the dam be included in the legislation. Rather, the request came from Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Dianne Feinstein of California. They are, respectively, the ranking member and the chairman of the relevant Senate Committee.

Moreover, Alexander defended the funding. He argued that “according to the Army Corps of Engineers, 160 million taxpayer dollars will be wasted because of canceled contracts if this language is not included.”

A Kentucky kickback? | Power Line


While I wish McConnell would be a bit, well okay maybe a lot, more assertive for our causes, he is a very sly old guy, and while he most assuredly could have orchestrated this deal, it was readily admitted by Diane F that she was one of the culprits, not Mitch there. Now he did not turn it down, it should also be noted. Maybe that has already been said somewhere in the thread, sorry if I am stepping on anybody's post. Just didn't seem like that tidbit had come to light judging by the statements being made currently.


In any event, all this effort to make Mitch look like you Dem's in the Corn Husker Kickback and newest Louisiana Purchase deals seems for naught, eh?

Maybe.


I agree, McConnell is a sly old guy. Your link makes some good points....


I’m not sure it matters whether McConnell requested that the funding be included in his compromise with Harry Reid. It was known to be something he favored and he agreed to its inclusion.

As for spending almost $3 billion to save $160 million, it’s an argument. But the real questions, to the extent we’re genuinely concerned about this matter as opposed to looking for a “gotcha,” are: (1) whether the underlying project is worth the money and (2) whether the compromise legislation contains similar accommodations for other projects around the country, if any, that face similar circumstances.
 
Like I said, keep supporting the status quo, keep supporting payoffs and bribes for votes, keep supporting going deeper and deeper into debt, keep supporting kicking the can down the road, keep supporting adding more and more bills that we already cant afford...sooner or later that monster you are supporting and propping up will have to be dealt with. And the longer we keep letting it go on as it has been the more people are going to be hurt by it.
I will, but only if you keep on supporting radicalism with a limited understanding of the difference between government and individual, a radicalism which could cause major financial ruin in America and across the world. Deal?
 
I will, but only if you keep on supporting radicalism with a limited understanding of the difference between government and individual, a radicalism which could cause major financial ruin in America and across the world. Deal?

If you want to believe that $17 Trillion in debt is a good thing and that piling more debt on top of it is also good...awesome for you.

If spending close to 1/3 of our revenue on interest payments isnt enough, add more debt, maybe then we can spend 1/2 of our revenue on interest only payments.

No debt is good debt. Its a lie. We are in the trouble we are in BECAUSE OF debt. You Libs make absolutely no sense when it comes to economic principals.
 
If you want to believe that $17 Trillion in debt is a good thing and that piling more debt on top of it is also good...awesome for you.
If you'd ever want to address what I actually have said instead of falsely attributing things to me I've never said, that'd be great. It'd be a change of pace for you.
 
If you'd ever want to address what I actually have said instead of falsely attributing things to me I've never said, that'd be great. It'd be a change of pace for you.

You are the one who supports bribery & paying off politicians for their vote. You are the one who supports the status quo. You have said so yourself. Anyone wanting to verify what you said, all they have to do is read your postings in this thread. They can read your own words.

Obama gets away with saying something than denies he ever said it...I am not the puppet MSM and you arent getting away with it.
 
We cut our defense budget in half in the 30's. Troops training for WW2 were training with wooden rifles and the troops defending Wake Island were using 40 year old bolt action rifles.

Cutting our offensive capabilities will cost lives.
And no one's proposing that we do that. If they are, that is a totally wrong mindset to have. I'm simply stating that we have plenty to cut. There are so many minor things the military could do to make every service more fiscally responsible. Namely the aforementioned "spend it or you lose it" mindset.
 
Back
Top Bottom