In response to:

The Pork Filled and Expensive Non-Relief Sandy Relief Bill

psydoc Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 8:24 PM
Where did I say you made a partisan assumption, blunten? Yes, if you are going to come on here and start with insults, you do need to make a point (draw a picture). Again, instead of simply criticizing Katie, you feel the need to call her a b itch. I remember fake outrage at some conservatives who labeled Sandra Fluke a s lut. Back on topic. Yes, both parties render their pork. It is wrong for either party to do so. I support, "one bill; one law". No pork amendments. btw, the outrage at the pork in this bill is valid. We simply can not continue to spend money we do not have. To use a bill that is purportedly to help the victims of hurricane Sandy to feed pet projects, is unconscionable.

It's been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy slammed into the East Coast, causing major damage in New York and New Jersey. The storm was so powerful, it is in the running to become the most expensive storm for taxpayers on record. Historically, Congress has passed hurricane relief bills in the immediate aftermath of storm damage, but Sandy is a different story. Why? Congress wrote up Hurricane Sandy Relief legislation and then Harry Reid's Senate loaded it with pork. What's in it? Many things that hardly count as relief for victims.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8...