Hillary Clinton's 261 Earmarks Lead All

[Pabster]

Story here.

And this is the "agent of change" the American people are demanding? :roll:

Earmarks are a disgusting part of DC culture, and while both sides are guilty of bringing home the pork (read: buying votes), there are some egregious offenders. Hillary tops the charts, which makes her "change" bullshit all the more ludicrous.

 

[nageov3t]

Clinton Grants $303,000 to Gay Lobby Group

:thumbsup:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

 

[palehorse]

For the record, I have no problem with $303,000 going towards fighting AIDS and meth addictions, but that still doesnt excuse the crazy total number of earmarks attributed to Clinton.... i mean... wow.

261!?!? jeebus!

 

[Skitzer]

Who's surprised by this?
"Damn it feels good to be a Gangsta"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
For the record, I have no problem with $303,000 going towards fighting AIDS and meth addictions, but that still doesnt excuse the crazy total number of earmarks attributed to Clinton.... i mean... wow.

261!?!? jeebus!

I'd also like to know the total $ amount vs the number of marks. Where's the main report at?

 

[NeoV]

she tops the charts of the presidential candidates, not the entire congress

I'm not making excuses for her either, but this is only in comparison to the other people running for President right now

also from the Article

"2008 is the first year that members of Congress have to put their names on earmarks."

How is that possible? Why?

I really think we need to start from scratch on our entire governmental structure and process

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NeoV
she tops the charts of the presidential candidates, not the entire congress

and as such can't be compared to the governors in the race

"2008 is the first year that members of Congress have to put their names on earmarks."
How is that possible? Why?

B/c dems passed ethics reform? Introduced by Obama. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.2261

 

[M0RPH]

As the article said, most of her earmarks were for organizations in her state of New York. So she works hard to get federal money for her state... is that a bad thing? I don't know, just asking.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
As the article said, most of her earmarks were for organizations in her state of New York. So she works hard to get federal money for her state... is that a bad thing? I don't know, just asking.

Depends. There's various complaints about earmarks in general. Some feel it's used to "buy" voting blocs or reward the faithful. I don't really have much complaint with giving universities and charities some dough to further their goals. I have a problem with ones I feel are wasteful. The $250 Million bridge in Alaska to serve 10 people...that bugs me. 300k to an anti-aids charity doesn't. NY is a major terrorist target so if she's securing funds for groups to bulk up security, fine. John McCain put in for zero earmarks, so I guess you can get by without them.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
As the article said, most of her earmarks were for organizations in her state of New York. So she works hard to get federal money for her state... is that a bad thing? I don't know, just asking.

Yes, it's a bad thing, though people only seem to care about the other guys doing it. They want their own state representatives to bring in all the bacon they can.

 

[theeedude]

CSN cybercast "news" is a notorious rightwing propaganda rag parading as a legit news source. Kind of like the one Jeff Gannon worked for.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: senseamp
CSN cybercast "news" is a notorious rightwing propaganda rag parading as a legit news source. Kind of like the one Jeff Gannon worked for.

CCAGW: Presidential Candidates Make Commitments on Earmarks

Now would you care to comment on your hero, or would you like to instead question the honesty of CCAGW?

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
CSN cybercast "news" is a notorious rightwing propaganda rag parading as a legit news source. Kind of like the one Jeff Gannon worked for.

regardless of the source, what's your excuse for the two facts in the article?

1) HRC has created more earmarks than any other current candidate for President.
2) HRC's total number of earmarks is 261.

So forget the source junior... try addressing the facts.

For the record, do you condone very large numbers of random expensive earmarks?

kkthx.

 

[yllus]

To be fair, consider the size of the constituency she represents. She's going to have a larger than average amount of things to look after and spend money upon.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
CSN cybercast "news" is a notorious rightwing propaganda rag parading as a legit news source. Kind of like the one Jeff Gannon worked for.

regardless of the source, what's your excuse for the two facts in the article?

1) HRC has created more earmarks than any other current candidate for President.
2) HRC's total number of earmarks is 261.

So forget the source junior... try addressing the facts.

For the record, do you condone very large numbers of random expensive earmarks?

kkthx.

The facts may or may not be true, but the context and reporting is tainted with outright propaganda and bias.
There is no problem with earmarks, as long as they are attributed to the person who put them in. I only have a problem with secret earmarks. You can debate if HIV/AIDS funding earmark is appropriate or not.

Citizens against government waste is a Reaganite think tank tied to Jack Abramoff. You guys set up an echo chamber of propaganda rags and "think tanks" and you are using one to back the other? May fly with your average American ignoramus and probably flew with you, but don't try to get it past me.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: yllus
To be fair, consider the size of the constituency she represents. She's going to have a larger than average amount of things to look after and spend money upon.

Here's an idea. Lower federal taxes and let the states handle these things. What's the point in having the feds take our money just to give it back to us?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Centralized power for the purpose of extortion.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

Well how about the fact the Hillary voted against the public disclosure of earmark sponsors and recipients?

Or this Huffington Post story about her getting $500 million in earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...lands-ear_n_76048.html


Or this story from The Hill tat says she had more earmarks in the 2008 defense budget than anyone except Carl Levin? By contrast, Obama had 1 earmark in it.
http://thehill.com/leading-the...rmarks-2007-06-13.html

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

I was just so NOT stunned to see you avoid addressing the issue/facts and instead attack the messenager.

BTW: That's mighty "Clintonian" of you.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

Well how about the fact the Hillary voted against the public disclosure of earmark sponsors and recipients?

Or this Huffington Post story about her getting $500 million in earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...lands-ear_n_76048.html


Or this story from The Hill tat says she had more earmarks in the 2008 defense budget than anyone except Carl Levin? By contrast, Obama had 1 earmark in it.
http://thehill.com/leading-the...rmarks-2007-06-13.html

yeah... why would the senator representing New York City possibly need things for her district in a defense bill?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

Are you willing to admit that the article is factually correct? If so, respond to the facts, not the source. If you are disputing the facts themselves then pony up a link.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

Are you willing to admit that the article is factually correct? If so, respond to the facts, not the source. If you are disputing the facts themselves then pony up a link.

the article seems factual, but it doesn't really seem noteworthy to talk about just the # of the earmarks without the total $ amount.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Yeah, I'm on the "Um, ok" train in regards to this "blistering news"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Paging techs. We need an official excuse for this.

I was just STUNNED. When I went thru the link Pabster posted it is the most outrageously right wing wacko site I have ever seen. Its right up there with Newsmax.
Nothing to see here except Pabsters willingness to quote anything anti-Hilary no matter what source its from.
/thread

Are you willing to admit that the article is factually correct? If so, respond to the facts, not the source. If you are disputing the facts themselves then pony up a link.

the article seems factual, but it doesn't really seem noteworthy to talk about just the # of the earmarks without the total $ amount.

And where the money went. If she allocated $2 million for a children's hospital I don't think we'd see quite as much handwringing.

I seem to recall around '06 when the DOHS database used to reallocated anti-terror funds all over the country, by naming places like a petting zoo in Indiana as a likely terrorist strike site and omitting the Brooklyn Bridge, Times Sq, the Empire State Bldn and Statue of Liberty. Bring home the bacon Hillary cuz Indiana's now safer than we are!