Lindsey Graham demands more government spending

[billvon 2,471]

Lindsey Graham was all for spending cuts - until one of those spending cuts came from his district. A mere $50,000 of federal funding was cut from the budget that was intended to go towards improvements in the Port of Charleston. He is now pitching a fit, threatening to "tie the Senate in knots" until he gets more money. The "Obama administration made a bad mistake not putting money for CHS port in their budget proposal. No nominations go forward in Senate until we address CHS port."

So we have a US Senator threatening to not do his job until Obama gives him more money. The question is - if he does get his pork, how long before he crucifies Obama for spending too much? Should Obama hold fast to the cuts, or should he cave to the borrow-and-spend GOP?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So we have a US Senator threatening to not do his job until Obama gives him more money. The question is - if he does get his pork, how long before he crucifies Obama for spending too much? Should Obama hold fast to the cuts, or should he cave to the borrow-and-spend GOP?

Obama should immediately fund and build that bridge to nowhere. Good campaign material for him to use around August next year.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

In defending the project – which amounts to a trifle in funding compared with the $38 billion in cuts that the 2011 budget deal would enact – Graham delivered a lengthy defense of infrastructure spending, a budget item that the White House has strongly backed as necessary if America is to “out-innovate” other countries and create jobs.

“If you’re a Republican and you want to create jobs, then you need to invest in infrastructure that will allow us to create jobs,” Graham said. “So, for $40,000 or $50,000, we can keep on track the deepening of a port that is a huge economic engine for the southeast. We have lost our way. The Obama administration talks about export jobs, but if you don’t invest in ports, how are you going to get the goods to go to other parts of the world?”

Graham added that there are 260,000 jobs either directly or indirectly tied to the Port of Charleston and that the overall price-tag for the six- or seven-year project will be $350 million, which would be split between the federal government and South Carolina.

Graham, who also noted that he would have planned to vote in favor of the long-term spending deal this week if it had included the port funding, said that a longer solution to the port funding would not be necessary in order for him to lift his hold on the nominations.

“It’s not too big of an ask,” Graham said. “We’re talking about a $40,000 need in Charleston to make sure the port doesn’t fall a year behind. And when people get focused on it, I think it’ll get solved.”

How dare him try and save all those jobs and do something that will actually have some benefit to real people instead of bailing out Banks. Hypocrit!!!

Did you hear he's gay, too?

[lawrocket 3]

You are making the same argument as every damned federal program - t's but a trifle and it actually gives jobs. Well, EVERY earmark has a big impact on those who receive it but unfelt by the taxpayer.

Graham is providing the PERFECT example of there being little diference between Democrats and Republicans - except the Republicans lie and say they are in favor of limited government.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I disagree. I have no problem with investing in infrastructure and items that actually benefit American Citizens. What I have a problem with is the processes in which the government operates that actually encourage abuses of the system, money wasted on purely pork projects and money given to people in other countries who have disdain for the US.

You really don't think we need to maintain and improve our infrastructure?

[rushmc 18]

except the Republicans lie and say they are in favor of limited government.

[SkyDekker 1,151]

Yes, everybody is for cuts in spending, unless it affects them off course.

The US can only be saved by significant cuts in spending and significantly increased taxes. Everybody will be affected, they will be even more affected if it doesn't happen.

You are getting very close to Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, etc and being unable to pay your debt load.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Yes, everybody is for cuts in spending, unless it affects them off course.

The US can only be saved by significant cuts in spending and significantly increased taxes. Everybody will be affected, they will be even more affected if it doesn't happen.

You are getting very close to Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, etc and being unable to pay your debt load.

+1 I agree. Anyone who thinks we can cut spending without raising taxes to get out of this mess is simply delusional. Just as delusional as the politicians and bankers that got us into this mess. I doubt most really understand the severity of our financial status.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Yes, everybody is for cuts in spending, unless it affects them off course.

The US can only be saved by significant cuts in spending and significantly increased taxes. Everybody will be affected, they will be even more affected if it doesn't happen.

You are getting very close to Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, etc and being unable to pay your debt load.

Well you are half right which is better than normal

Why?

Because no amount of tax increases can keep up with the gov spending that we have to day and the projected spending increases it will take to sustain Obama's future vision

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CanuckInUSA 0]

This Lindsey Graham character is a hypocrite if on one hand cuts are being demanded while on the other hand "do not dare make cuts to my special interest project". But should we be surprised? A politician who talks out of both sides of their mouth? Why do people continue to worship politicians?

Everywhere you look governments (Federal, State/Provincial and Municipal) are addicted to spending. Canada is in the middle of a Federal election right now and all we hear from all sides (some are worse than others) is "How many spending promises can they make to their lemmings". Who can buy who's vote with promises of government spending. It is out of control and as much as politicians are scum of the earth, I place the blame on the public who continue to demand spending on special interest projects. If the public wasn't demanding all this spending, then politicians would not be promising their spending and governments would not be spending like they do. Since the public demands special interest project spending, that is exactly what we get. And the debt clock continues to tick. Tick tock, tick tock.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

This Lindsey Graham character is a hypocrite if on one hand cuts are being demanded while on the other hand "do not dare make cuts to my special interest project". But should we be surprised? A politician who talks out of both sides of their mouth? Why do people continue to worship politicians?

Everywhere you look governments (Federal, State/Provincial and Municipal) are addicted to spending. Canada is in the middle of a Federal election right now and all we hear from all sides (some are worse than others) is "How many spending promises can they make to their lemmings". Who can buy who's vote with promises of government spending. It is out of control and as much as politicians are scum of the earth, I place the blame on the public who continue to demand spending on special interest projects. If the public wasn't demanding all this spending, then politicians would not be promising their spending and governments would not be spending like they do. Since the public demands special interest project spending, that is exactly what we get. And the debt clock continues to tick. Tick tock, tick tock.

+1

I do not agree much with billvon but he has stated on many occations that we get what we vote for

He is right with one caviot

To many do not know what they are voting for

They are those who only watch the main network news comedies

So, we get what the media tells them to vote for

Only when people get mad enough to pay attention do we have elections like the last one

I hope it repeats in about 18 months

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[futuredivot 0]

As usual, the story is slightly deeper than that-not so much about the 50K

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MIB7KO0.htm

But I'm kinda on this side of the fence on this-I'd like to see an ROI projection in jobs and new tax revenue generated

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/04/throw_the_tea_into_charleston_harbor.php

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

So, we get what the media tells them to vote for

You ain't seen nothing yet. Count yourself lucky that you do not have a publicly funded media organization who has come up with a computerized tool where people enter their opinions on various social issues and then have the tool tell you who you should be voting for. Our publicly funded media organization has done just this. 9 out of 10 times, this media tool tells you to vote for preferred candidate the publicly funded media organization supports and it does not matter how many times people complain that this tool is faulty and inaccurate, this publicly funded media organization continues to peddle their tool because they believe there are enough stupid people in this world to buy into their propaganda.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,471]

>How dare him try and save all those jobs and do something that will actually have
>some benefit to real people . . .

Oh, I have no doubt that he feels that his pork will do a lot of good, and that he thinks it's a very worthwhile federal expenditure.

Now realize that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN thinks that about their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Both democrat and republican. Which is why that, over time, spending always goes up, no matter who is in charge.

So next time you are tempted to bitch about some democrat spending money, keep in mind that he's just trying to save jobs and benefit real people.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Everywhere you look governments (Federal, State/Provincial and Municipal) are addicted to spending.

addicted to spending other people's money.

Let Graham cough up the 50k himself.

Better yet, let's review how much South Carolina pays in and takes out. I bet it's a taker state, not a giver.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Everywhere you look governments (Federal, State/Provincial and Municipal) are addicted to spending.

addicted to spending other people's money.

Let Graham cough up the 50k himself.

Better yet, let's review how much South Carolina pays in and takes out. I bet it's a taker state, not a giver.

Correct - like most of the "red" states.
[url]voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html[url]

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hwt 0]

Lindsey is a Rino . but at least it was only 50 k
Back around February Obama submitted his 2012 budget of 3.7 trillion .
Now Obama presents us with he all new 2012 budget which is supposed to reduce the deficit .
It looks like the Republicans turned his 3.7 trillion dollar plan around to at least discussing fiscal response ability .

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

The fight for funding is not so much about the money -- about $50,000 in federal matching funds for a limited scoping study -- but about moving the process on to the next step.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MIB7KO0.htm

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Better yet, let's review how much South Carolina pays in and takes out. I bet it's a taker state, not a giver.

2004 numbers:

NC tax burden per capita: $5306

NC federal expenditure per capita:

$2402 retirement and disability (SS/Medicare)
$1360 other direct payments
$1500 grants to state/local gov'ts
$469 procurement
$859 salaries and wages

$6590 total, and ranking of 35 out of 50 (for 2004). FYI, Cali is ranked 36th.

Seeing the breakdown of the accounts paints a little different picture, doesn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Better yet, let's review how much South Carolina pays in and takes out. I bet it's a taker state, not a giver.

2004 numbers:

NC tax burden per capita: $5306

NC federal expenditure per capita:

$2402 retirement and disability (SS/Medicare)
$1360 other direct payments
$1500 grants to state/local gov'ts
$469 procurement
$859 salaries and wages

$6590 total, and ranking of 35 out of 50 (for 2004). FYI, Cali is ranked 36th.

Seeing the breakdown of the accounts paints a little different picture, doesn't it?

Hard to tell, since it's not clear what you're saying here. NC is 35th in spending per capita, or in the differential?

Because I know that CA has a much higher tax burden per capita than NC. It pays more than it gets, and in a budget where we're running a significant deficit, just breaking even is already losing.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hard to tell, since it's not clear what you're saying here. NC is 35th in spending per capita, or in the differential?

Rankings are fed expenditure per capita.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Hard to tell, since it's not clear what you're saying here. NC is 35th in spending per capita, or in the differential?

Rankings are fed expenditure per capita.

and the rankings for tax revenues per capita?

where is this source you're citing from?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hard to tell, since it's not clear what you're saying here. NC is 35th in spending per capita, or in the differential?

Rankings are fed expenditure per capita.

and the rankings for tax revenues per capita?

36th.

Quote

where is this source you're citing from?

Link, compiled from OMB info.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>How dare him try and save all those jobs and do something that will actually have
>some benefit to real people . . .

Oh, I have no doubt that he feels that his pork will do a lot of good, and that he thinks it's a very worthwhile federal expenditure.

Now realize that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN thinks that about their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Both democrat and republican. Which is why that, over time, spending always goes up, no matter who is in charge.

So next time you are tempted to bitch about some democrat spending money, keep in mind that he's just trying to save jobs and benefit real people.

I tend to bitch about WHAT they are spending money on. In this case it's infrastructure which will allow this port to import and export more effectively.

[billvon 2,471]

>I tend to bitch about WHAT they are spending money on. In this case it's
>infrastructure which will allow this port to import and export more effectively.

Once again, I am not arguing that you're wrong. I am sure that many people see that as a very good use of taxpayer dollars. For other people, using money to support scientific research, or development of alternate fuels, or to save family farms, or educating children, or supporting veterans, or having wars, is just as important. The desire to spend money on what people consider good causes is just as prevalent on both sides of the aisle.