Family, Health, and Entertainment for Nurses
allnurses.com | Jobs for Nurses | Books for Nurses | Newsletter
Home Central News US Politics Blogs Articles Recreation Pets
Picks Help

US Politics /

House passes $410 billion spending bill....




Page 1 of 4 1 234 >

House passes $410 billion spending bill....

Feb 25, 2009 03:13 PM written by RN1982 | 31 Comments
Print   Email   Follow  
Updated Feb 25, 2009 at 03:19 PM by RN1982

Can we give it a rest already? Really, I should just start signing my paychecks over to the government. I don't care who wanted this bill, all this spending is too much. Are they gonna tax us more now? Where is this money going to be coming from? Is this all they know how to do right now? Spend, spend, spend?

You know what, I don't need that 13 bucks I was gonna see in my paycheck, the government can keep it.
 
 
Page 1 of 4 1 234 >
Reply
31 Comments
No. 1
Old Feb 25, 2009, 03:35 PM

Although I'm a self-described centrist, I am saddened to hear of another bill that involves massive amounts of spending.

I'm beginning to believe that the economy would recover faster if it were permitted to hit a bottom without interference from the government. When something is at the bottom, the only direction in which it can travel is upward.
 
No. 2
from RN1982
Old Feb 25, 2009, 03:47 PM

The bill includes 200k for tattoo removal for former gang-members as well as funding for some hybrid grape project and funding to control a beaver population. This bill is full of earmarks. Didn't Obama say he was gonna cut out all the pork and refuse to sign a bill full of earmarks? If he signs this bill, which to me would be Obama going back on his word, how am I suppose to support/respect him as our president?

It's not about Democrat or Republican because both parties have their pork in this bill. And I'm glad that there were Dems and Repubs that opposed it.
 
No. 3
from herring_RN
Old Feb 25, 2009, 06:07 PM

I plan to write my Representative about the earmarks.
And encourage my Senators NOT to allow earmarks in the Senate version.
And the President.

They need to learn that change means stopping those old habits.
No more business as usual.
 
No. 5
from RN1982
Old Feb 25, 2009, 06:36 PM
Updated Feb 25, 2009 at 06:59 PM by RN1982

What's your point? Is the government suppose to stop spending money on our troops who are over in Iraq? You know that Bush wasn't gonna pull them out in 2006 but even then did you expect him to stop spending billions of dollars on them? If our troops are going to be sent to some foreign country for whatever reason, they should have the resources available to them to survive. If that means spending millions of dollars to keep them alive, so be it.

During the election, Obama claimed that he will pull out the troops and now he'll pull the troops and leave 50,000 of them there after the so-called pullout to clean up. That's not exactly a pull-out. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/18796956/detail.html

How about the government focusing on getting us out of the current mess we are in? How about they stop shelling out millions of dollars to fulfil their own political agendas? I think much of this bill is wasteful.
 
No. 6
from RN1982
Old Feb 25, 2009, 06:49 PM

It would just be hella easier if Obama pulled the troops outright instead of leaving some of them over there.
 
No. 7
Old Feb 25, 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by TraumaNurse07 View Post
If our troops are going to be sent to some foreign country for whatever reason, they should have the resources available to them to survive.
Our troops SHOULD NOT be sent to some foreign country for whatever reason.

It better be a damned good reason.
 
No. 8
from RN1982
Old Feb 25, 2009, 07:34 PM
Updated Feb 25, 2009 at 07:42 PM by RN1982

You don't need to be snarky about it. I agree though. The troops shouldn't be sent for just any reason but 8 years ago, THEY WERE. But since they were sent there for WHATEVER REASON I.E. BIG FAT LIE, the government better make damn sure they are well taken care of.
 
No. 9
Old Feb 25, 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by TheCommuter View Post
Although I'm a self-described centrist, I am saddened to hear of another bill that involves massive amounts of spending.

I'm beginning to believe that the economy would recover faster if it were permitted to hit a bottom without interference from the government. When something is at the bottom, the only direction in which it can travel is upward.
History does not support that doing nothing helps. Besides without intervention it could take another couple of years for absolute collapse.I think things are a lot worse than being reported. Spending or stimulus or whatever you want to call it.. is what we know everyday. It takes money to make money. I know I pay money right now to go to nursing school!!!
 
Page 1 of 4 1 234 >
Reply



 
Thread Tools




Register to participate
Article Contests

4

Hillary for President, 2012?

1

Taking on the catfood commission

7

Swift plant sued over treatment of Muslim workers

33

Bush Preferred Over Obama

9

Suspect had long protested Discovery programming

19

Arizona reported to the United Nations

5

China goes organic after scandal of cooking oil from sewers

1

Billions Wasted Rebuilding Iraq as basic services are cut...


0

A True Classic

0

Katrina Retrospective: Rescuing Mamita

0

"Flipping Out" at 50

0

My Dad, Rambo and Socrates

0

Genetic Template or Environmental Conditioning?

0

Adolescent Inservice and Sleep Deprivation

5

Not just a regular Car fire

8

Conversations With My Mother






Advertise | Site Map | Terms Of Service | Privacy | Contact Us | Copyright © 1996-2010 allnurses.com INC