PDA

View Full Version : What is in the spending bill



Peter1469
12-10-2014, 06:20 PM
What is in the spending bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/09/whats-in-the-spending-bill-we-skim-it-so-you-dont-have-to/)

A lot. The Washington Post breaks it down in a long list and likely does not capture everything.

$1.1T not including 8 months of funding for DHS. A massive deficit.


The $1.01 trillion spending bill unveiled late Tuesday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massive-spending-bill-hits-snag-in-congress-as-deadline-draws-near/2014/12/09/981a81b4-7fa7-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html) will keep most of the federal government funded through next September -- and it's packed with hundreds of policy instructions, known on Capitol Hill as "riders," that will upset or excite Democrats, Republicans and various special interest groups.



So, what's in the bill? We've sifted through the legislation, consulted supporting documents from Democratic and Republican aides, and called out some of the more notable and controversial elements below. (If you want to review detailed reports on all 12 parts of the spending bill, click here (http://rules.house.gov/bill/113/hr-83).)



Please note: This is a fluid report that will be updated to add more detail or correct errors. What notable changes did we miss? What notable changes did you spot? Contact us (ed.okeefe@washpost.com) or share details in the comments section below:

Cigar
12-10-2014, 06:25 PM
If it has ANYTHING that allows Banks to get of The Hook for Gambling again ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

We are NOT going back to pre'2008 Banking Rules ... Screw that, I'm Done Bailing them out to Gamble My Money ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If it Deregulates ANYTHING ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Were getting ready to end the year with RECORD HIGHS in Business, Market, Hiring and Lows in Gas Prices.

If The GOP wants to Screw with ANY of THAT ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

PolWatch
12-10-2014, 06:31 PM
Did I read something wrong or did the dems increase the $$$ allowed as donations for political campaigns?

Crepitus
12-10-2014, 06:34 PM
Did I read something wrong or did the dems increase the $$$ allowed as donations for political campaigns?
I didn't see where it said which party but I'm willing to bet it wasn't Democrats.

Chris
12-10-2014, 06:34 PM
The bill’s complete text was finally released last night. It combines 11 appropriations bills (an omnibus) with a short-term continuing resolution (CR) just for the Department of Homeland security (omnibus plus CR="cromnibus").

From By Cromnibus! The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Massive New $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill (http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/by-cromnibus-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ug)

It goes on:


I don’t recommend reading it. Those who do will find a 1,600-odd page guide to how to spend more than $1 trillion other people’s money (not like anyone in Congress really needs one).

Bob
12-10-2014, 06:34 PM
If it has ANYTHING that allows Banks to get of The Hook for Gambling again ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

We are NOT going back to pre'2008 Banking Rules ... Screw that, I'm Done Bailing them out to Gamble My Money ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If it Deregulates ANYTHING ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Were getting ready to end the year with RECORD HIGHS in Business, Market, Hiring and Lows in Gas Prices.

If The GOP wants to Screw with ANY of THAT ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

I bet your party takes credit for the huge rain storm that will hit us in a few hours too.

Obama says he will compromise.

Tell him to put up or shut up.

Bob
12-10-2014, 06:35 PM
If you want to know why Banks are still slow, look no further than Dodd Frank. It never solved the problems of the past. The housing market is still slow.

Cigar
12-10-2014, 06:35 PM
Did I read something wrong or did the dems increase the $$$ allowed as donations for political campaigns?

That's The Repubs that did that ... :laugh:

There was NO debate on this Bill. :wink:

PolWatch
12-10-2014, 06:35 PM
I didn't see where it said which party but I'm willing to bet it wasn't Democrats.

the column to the left of the item shows which party proposed the item...if I'm reading this right...

Cigar
12-10-2014, 06:38 PM
If you want to know why Banks are still slow, look no further than Dodd Frank. It never solved the problems of the past. The housing market is still slow.

SLOW!

What Forking Planet are you ON?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mX4YyCc3eOQ/UvCYNXQuUSI/AAAAAAAAANw/LDe6mu6eSsM/s1600/screen-shot-2014-01-30-at-10-14-32-am1.png

http://img.qz.com/2014/01/rtr2ptg3.jpg?w=940

Profits at US banks hit a post-crisis record last yearhttp://qz.com/172182/profits-at-us-banks-hit-a-post-crisis-record-last-year/

Redrose
12-10-2014, 06:40 PM
If it has ANYTHING that allows Banks to get of The Hook for Gambling again ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

We are NOT going back to pre'2008 Banking Rules ... Screw that, I'm Done Bailing them out to Gamble My Money ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If it Deregulates ANYTHING ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Were getting ready to end the year with RECORD HIGHS in Business, Market, Hiring and Lows in Gas Prices.

If The GOP wants to Screw with ANY of THAT ... I say Shut The Mother Down.



So, are you saying Shut the Mother Down? Or do you mean Shut the Mother Down?

Chris
12-10-2014, 06:40 PM
Did I read something wrong or did the dems increase the $$$ allowed as donations for political campaigns?

Both parties:


Congressional budget negotiators from both parties have included a provision in the bill to continue funding the government into next year that dramatically changes campaign finance law to allow lawmakers to solicit even bigger contributions from the wealthiest donors.

The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.

The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount.

@ Omnibus Bill Allows Wealthy Donors To Give Even More to Political Parties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html)

Cigar
12-10-2014, 06:42 PM
So, are you saying Shut the Mother Down? Or do you mean Shut the Mother Down?

I mean Shut The MF Down :grin:

Chris
12-10-2014, 06:42 PM
So, are you saying Shut the Mother Down? Or do you mean Shut the Mother Down?

Shut the Mother Down!!

Redrose
12-10-2014, 06:43 PM
I think we should be rolling back political contributions, not allowing larger amounts. It's obscene what is spent on these rediculous campaigns....both sides. That money could feed and clothe the needy in this country. The whole thing is sick.

Crepitus
12-10-2014, 06:44 PM
the column to the left of the item shows which party proposed the item...if I'm reading this right...
Not seeing that column on my screen. weird.

PolWatch
12-10-2014, 06:47 PM
Both parties:



@ Omnibus Bill Allows Wealthy Donors To Give Even More to Political Parties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html)

finally, bipartisan agreement...on getting more $$$ in their campaign coffers. Why am I not surprised?

Chris
12-10-2014, 06:51 PM
Did I read something wrong or did the dems increase the $$$ allowed as donations for political campaigns?

You're right, sponsored by Dems:

http://i.snag.gy/FbRss.jpg

@ http://rules.house.gov/bill/113/hr-83

Chris
12-10-2014, 06:53 PM
finally, bipartisan agreement...on getting more $$$ in their campaign coffers. Why am I not surprised?

Sponsored by Dems, but with bipartisan support, and why not, it goes to the two parties, third parties excluded.

Bob
12-10-2014, 06:53 PM
You're right, sponsored by Dems:

http://i.snag.gy/FbRss.jpg

@ http://rules.house.gov/bill/113/hr-83

Great catch.

Thanks a lot.

Redrose
12-10-2014, 07:07 PM
finally, bipartisan agreement...on getting more $$$ in their campaign coffers. Why am I not surprised?

People are buying elections. So only very wealthy people or those with mega funds behind them can win.
That was never the intention when this nation was born.

Now don't get me wrong, we need a president that is educated, fairly well mannered, well spoken, presentable, after all he/she will represent us around the world. I don't want to see Rocco Baccigalup from the Bronx or Bubba Jones from the Holler in the WH.

We need to elect someone well suited for the job, and these mega campaigns are excluding a wealth of good people, good talent, who just can't support a viable campaign.

Howey
12-10-2014, 07:10 PM
If it has ANYTHING that allows Banks to get of The Hook for Gambling again ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

We are NOT going back to pre'2008 Banking Rules ... Screw that, I'm Done Bailing them out to Gamble My Money ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If it Deregulates ANYTHING ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Were getting ready to end the year with RECORD HIGHS in Business, Market, Hiring and Lows in Gas Prices.

If The GOP wants to Screw with ANY of THAT ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Republicans stuffed soooo much shit in that bill they should rot in hell.

Relief for oil companies, banks, and other cronies at the expense of school lunches????

Did they really think they'd get away with it????????????????????????????????

Howey
12-10-2014, 07:12 PM
we need a president that is educated, fairly well mannered, well spoken, presentable, after all he/she will represent us around the world.

So we have someone now who fits that description; a relative unknown who worked his way up and gained the respect of the entire world. Yet the right emasculated every move he made. Go figure...

hanger4
12-10-2014, 07:21 PM
Republicans stuffed soooo much $#@! in that bill they should rot in hell.

Relief for oil companies, banks, and other cronies at the expense of school lunches????

Did they really think they'd get away with it????????????????????????????????

"at the expense of school lunches????"

WTF are you babbleing about ??

Redrose
12-10-2014, 07:24 PM
So we have someone now who fits that description; a relative unknown who worked his way up and gained the respect of the entire world. Yet the right emasculated every move he made. Go figure...


Yes Obama is all of those things, but the man is also a liar, disonest, unethical, feckless, narcissistic, shallow, ruthless, and too far left.

hanger4
12-10-2014, 07:26 PM
Yes Obama is all of those things, but the man is also a liar, disonest, unethical, feckless, narcissistic, shallow, ruthless, and too far left.

Ouch ....... remind me to stay on yoir good side. :)

Redrose
12-10-2014, 07:46 PM
Ouch ....... remind me to stay on yoir good side. :)


No need to fear. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Cigar
12-10-2014, 08:54 PM
5 Awful Things Congress Snuck Into the Omnibus Budget DealOn Tuesday, Congressional leaders struck a deal to avert another government shutdown and put off our next completely avoidable, 100% self-imposed budget crisis until next September. And while most members of the least productive Congress in the history of these United States are already busy patting themselves on the back for summoning enough courage and can-do American spirit to actually govern for a day, the rest of us shouldn’t start celebrating just yet.

If you’re a Congressperson looking sneak through something shady, the omnibus budget bill is the perfect opportunity since 1.) It’s 1600 pages long and very easy to hide things in, and 2.) Congress kind of has to pass it or the government shuts down. Again.

So naturally, there are a whole lot of shady things in there. Since this 1600 page bill was released on Tuesday night and we’re not magic, we can’t list every single one of those things just yet. But we can highlight the 5 most awful ones we’ve come across so far — everything from crazily wasteful spending to overturning a popular Marijuana Legalization ballot initiative.

5. $479 MILLION FOR WARPLANES THAT THE PENTAGON DIDN’T ASK FOR - What's New :tongue:

4. $93 MILLION (MORE) CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC) NUTRITION PROGRAM - Merry Christmas Bitches :rollseyes:

3. NULLIFICATION OF VOTER-BACKED MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN D.C. -- that's sure Democratic of The GOP :rollseyes:

2. THE BILL THAT CITIGROUP WROTE - What a Surprise :rollseyes:

1. MORE BIG MONEY IN POLITICS - What another Surprise :rollseyes:



http://bulletin.represent.us/5-awful-things-congress-snuck-omnibus-budget-deal

Chris
12-10-2014, 09:12 PM
5 Awful Things Congress Snuck Into the Omnibus Budget DealOn Tuesday, Congressional leaders struck a deal to avert another government shutdown and put off our next completely avoidable, 100% self-imposed budget crisis until next September. And while most members of the least productive Congress in the history of these United States are already busy patting themselves on the back for summoning enough courage and can-do American spirit to actually govern for a day, the rest of us shouldn’t start celebrating just yet.

If you’re a Congressperson looking sneak through something shady, the omnibus budget bill is the perfect opportunity since 1.) It’s 1600 pages long and very easy to hide things in, and 2.) Congress kind of has to pass it or the government shuts down. Again.

So naturally, there are a whole lot of shady things in there. Since this 1600 page bill was released on Tuesday night and we’re not magic, we can’t list every single one of those things just yet. But we can highlight the 5 most awful ones we’ve come across so far — everything from crazily wasteful spending to overturning a popular Marijuana Legalization ballot initiative.

5. $479 MILLION FOR WARPLANES THAT THE PENTAGON DIDN’T ASK FOR - What's New :tongue:

4. $93 MILLION (MORE) CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC) NUTRITION PROGRAM - Merry Christmas Bitches :rollseyes:

3. NULLIFICATION OF VOTER-BACKED MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN D.C. -- that's sure Democratic of The GOP :rollseyes:

2. THE BILL THAT CITIGROUP WROTE - What a Surprise :rollseyes:

1. MORE BIG MONEY IN POLITICS - What another Surprise :rollseyes:



http://bulletin.represent.us/5-awful-things-congress-snuck-omnibus-budget-deal


Yes, Congress, bipartisan, Rep and Dem Congress.

zelmo1234
12-10-2014, 09:16 PM
If it has ANYTHING that allows Banks to get of The Hook for Gambling again ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

We are NOT going back to pre'2008 Banking Rules ... Screw that, I'm Done Bailing them out to Gamble My Money ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If it Deregulates ANYTHING ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

Were getting ready to end the year with RECORD HIGHS in Business, Market, Hiring and Lows in Gas Prices.

If The GOP wants to Screw with ANY of THAT ... I say Shut The Mother Down.

If this is the case, and I don't disagree, Then don't you think we should also kill off the rules that force the banks to make loans to people that can't pay them back?

zelmo1234
12-10-2014, 09:21 PM
So we have someone now who fits that description; a relative unknown who worked his way up and gained the respect of the entire world. Yet the right emasculated every move he made. Go figure...

Who do we have that has the respect of the world. the current resident of the Whitehouse is the laughing stock of leaders around the world. one thing is for sure, they do not respect him!

Howey
12-10-2014, 09:21 PM
"at the expense of school lunches????"

WTF are you babbleing about ??

This:

4. $93 MILLION (MORE) CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC) NUTRITION PROGRAM - Merry Christmas $#@!es*

zelmo1234
12-10-2014, 09:26 PM
This:

4. $93 MILLION (MORE) CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC) NUTRITION PROGRAM - Merry Christmas $#@!es*

If I am not mistake, this cut comes automatically when the unemployment rate drops. As the Administration is cooking the books on unemployment by not counting the people that are no longer on unemployment and have given up on looking for work.

This would not be a problem if there were not 9 million fewer people working, than the last time we had an unemployment rate around 6%