• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Damn the US Senate!

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,773
11
81
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/index.html">The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly shot down an effort Thursday night to ban "earmark" spending for one year -- quashing an effort backed by all three senators seeking the presidency.
</a>

This would been one TINY step towards SOME fiscal responsibility from the FEDS, but oh no, we can't have that.

Fall Dollar! Keep on falling!

 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,017
1,801
126
Its like when the decide to vote them selves a raise.
Do you really expect them not to?
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,773
11
81
Originally posted by: sportage
Its like when the decide to vote them selves a raise.
Do you really expect them not to?
One can hope!

And in addition, I hope Congress eventually self-imposes...

1) Term limits (two).
2) No salary (only get reimbursed for food, rent in DC area, and travel expenses to home state/district. Job should be voluntary for the good of their constituents.)
3) Refuse all additional benefits, including health care...such that they would be forced to experience what everyone else does instead of their perfect health care.
4) Be required to file their own taxes every year on their own without additional help, aside from a calculator and maybe TurboTax software. No accountants!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: sportage
Its like when the decide to vote them selves a raise.
Do you really expect them not to?
One can hope!

And in addition, I hope Congress eventually self-imposes...

1) Term limits (two).
2) No salary (only get reimbursed for food, rent in DC area, and travel expenses to home state/district. Job should be voluntary for the good of their constituents.)
3) Refuse all additional benefits, including health care...such that they would be forced to experience what everyone else does instead of their perfect health care.
4) Be required to file their own taxes every year on their own without additional help, aside from a calculator and maybe TurboTax software. No accountants!
1.) Term limits are a bad idea because they weaken the power of the legislature against the executive... something we can't have happen any more then it has.
2.) Salaries make legislators more resistant to corruption. (note: MORE resistant) If a congressman falls on hard economic times it makes him far more likely to get into something shady. Considering how shady a lot of them are already, this is bad.
3.) See #2
4.) Why?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
McCain's promised to veto earmarks, hasn't he?

kinda seems like there's a fine line to draw... not all appropriations are bad, but I definitely think they all need to see the light of day and get voted on independently.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
This is the real gem in that article:

"Defenders of earmarks, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, say earmarks -- or "congressionally directed spending" as they prefer to call them -- are an important congressional prerogative that ensure home-state needs aren't overlooked by Washington bureaucrats."

Really? The museum of corn, the bridge to nowhere, those aren't needs nor are the vast majority of earmarks.

Congressionally directed spending, lol.

That sounds a lot like doublespeak to me, similar to something funny that happened at work. All of us who travel were required to read and agree to a legal document that tried to delineate the legal differences between a bribe and a "facilitating payment" while travelling abroad. You see a bribe is offering money to do something a person wouldn't normally do, a facilitating payment is a fee that you pay to expedite something that would be done but at some unknown point, see the difference?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,966
1,304
126
Sure looks to me like the fix was in on this one. Co-sponsors of this amendment included McCain, Obama & Clinton-by any stretch the de facto leaders of both parties. Yet it LOST 29-71. That means none of those three have any control over their party or this amendment was purely for political posturing during the campaign.

My vote is with the second option-especially since this was the first time in months that all three took time off from their campaigning to actually attend the Senate.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
All hail our Democratic controlled Senate !!! They talk out of the side of their mouth and say "get rid of earmarks" ?but when it's time to stand up an be counted, you get to see their true colors. Maybe it's time for some of the sheep here to take off their rose-colored glassses and wake up?.lol?that will be the day.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
McCain's promised to veto earmarks, hasn't he?

kinda seems like there's a fine line to draw... not all appropriations are bad, but I definitely think they all need to see the light of day and get voted on independently.
McCain's not going to be vetoing earmarks. The whole point is that they are the part of larger bills that nobody's willing to veto. He might get a few taken out here and there, but I can't imagine much more then that.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Unfortunately, neither party can be considered as the people's party of "fiscally responsibility". Republicans reduce taxes and spend. Democrats raise taxes and spend. Neither have the cahunas to reduce spending (which is totally out of control) and that will eventually prove to be our undoing.

I'm sick and tired of the "feel good" rhetoric of hypocritical politicians as well as the finger pointing and excuses from the blind ones (political apologists)...we need meaningful action and we need it now. That's my two cents...sorry for the rant...it just really pisses me off.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Unfortunately, neither party can be considered as the people's party of "fiscally responsibility". Republicans reduce taxes and spend. Democrats raise taxes and spend. Neither have the cahunas to reduce spending (which is totally out of control) and that will eventually prove to be our undoing.

I'm sick and tired of the "feel good" rhetoric of hypocritical politicians as well as the finger pointing and excuses from the blind ones (political apologists)...we need meaningful action and we need it now. That's my two cents...sorry for the rant...it just really pisses me off.
:thumbsup:
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
If it looks like a political ploy and talks like a political ploy and walks like a political ploy.......
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
218
101
Politicians who don't get their districts earmarks end up in other jobs. If you want to change the system, start with the voters.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
yet another reason to hate politicians


What's the ETA on the secession of the Indian reservation?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
McCane was hoping to be in the news last night because of this. Clearly Obama and Clinton blunted that advantage.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,966
1,304
126
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
All hail our Democratic controlled Senate !!! They talk out of the side of their mouth and say "get rid of earmarks" ?but when it's time to stand up an be counted, you get to see their true colors. Maybe it's time for some of the sheep here to take off their rose-colored glassses and wake up?.lol?that will be the day.

There is 79 Democrats in the Senate? Not hardly. Both parties are equally to blame here-as I said before the "leaders" of both parties pushed for this, next to noone followed.

I suggest checking regarding your state's senators and emailing them if they were part of the infamous 79.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,993
100
106
That'll happen on a cold day in hell. This is how incumbents stay in power, by letting the more senior members show that they "bring home the bacon". Any group of people that can vote themselves benefits and defacto job security will eventually do so. Term limits? That'll happen around the same time. It may be in the interest of the American people, but not of the congressmen themselves. Guess who wins out almost every time?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
All hail our Democratic controlled Senate !!! They talk out of the side of their mouth and say "get rid of earmarks" ?but when it's time to stand up an be counted, you get to see their true colors. Maybe it's time for some of the sheep here to take off their rose-colored glassses and wake up?.lol?that will be the day.

There is 79 Democrats in the Senate? Not hardly. Both parties are equally to blame here-as I said before the "leaders" of both parties pushed for this, next to noone followed.

I suggest checking regarding your state's senators and emailing them if they were part of the infamous 79.
O Blind One...please look at my subsequent post. When I made the initial post above...it was intended to accentuate the point that Dems controlling the Senate doesn't mean jack...nothing's changed...still the same old shit.

I blame Democrats AND Republicans. Got it?

Edit: FYI...Republicans were evenly split...90% of Democrats voted against. The Democrat Senator from my state (MO) co-sponsered the bill and voted for it along with 4 other Democrats (2 of which were Clinton and Obama).

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY