Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks...sounded nice, at least......

[jhbball]

personal attacks! AHHHHHHH

translation: you mad?

 

[nick1985]

translation: you mad?

Furious. My fists are balled up and I have spit flying out of my mouth.

How are you?

 

[JD50]

Yes, it is diversion - this thread isn't really about how there is little difference between the parties in practice. It is more about how elected officials once AGAIN have lied to their constituents; just so happens that this time it is the republicans.

Yes, and my point was that there's no alternative. That's not a diversion, that's a discussion.

 

[Patranus]

Huh?

This isn't an earmark.

The claims were against the federal government and the monies allotted to settle those claims.

 

[werepossum]

Republicans in D.C. have a four to six year shelf life before they become Democrats. They may remain gay-bashing Democrats, but they certainly give over the whole "small government" principles (for those who had them originally - which is probably a minority.)

 

[Carmen813]

Republicans in D.C. have a four to six year shelf life before they become Democrats. They may remain gay-bashing Democrats, but they certainly give over the whole "small government" principles (for those who had them originally - which is probably a minority.)

Instead of referring them to as gay bashing Democrats, we should call them what they are, which is unprincipled or hypocritical. They go to Washington saying one thing, and then proceed to do the exact opposite. At least Democrats are somewhat consistent ideologically....somewhat.

I don't understand the rage over earmarks. They account for basically NONE of the overall federal budget, and it's one of the few Constitutional powers that Congress actually has (appropriating funding). Partisan yabbering about earmarks is just silly, and I could give a damn about the symbolism eliminating them is supposed to represent. I don't need symbolism, I need real solutions. Pretending eliminating earmarks will actually mean a damn for our long term deficits is like saying you can empty the ocean with a bucket.

 

[Fern]

Error 404: Earmark Not Found

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Instead of referring them to as gay bashing Democrats, we should call them what they are, which is unprincipled or hypocritical. They go to Washington saying one thing, and then proceed to do the exact opposite. At least Democrats are somewhat consistent ideologically....somewhat.

I don't understand the rage over earmarks. They account for basically NONE of the overall federal budget, and it's one of the few Constitutional powers that Congress actually has (appropriating funding). Partisan yabbering about earmarks is just silly, and I could give a damn about the symbolism eliminating them is supposed to represent. I don't need symbolism, I need real solutions. Pretending eliminating earmarks will actually mean a damn for our long term deficits is like saying you can empty the ocean with a bucket.

Tomayto, tomahto. Democrats, unprincipled or hypocritical. Democrats are a bunch of rich people leavened with a bunch of soon to be rich people getting elected by promising to soak the rich. But I do agree that Democrats, who start with the philosophy that they are entitled to seize and spend all money if they so choose, do tend to remain more true to that calling than Republicans stick to the opposite.

Earmarks (meaning specifically pork projects stuck onto an unrelated bill to buy votes to pass that bill) are a bit from Congress passing particular projects which are called out specifically within a bill funding that general area. People are yammering about earmarks basically for three reasons. They typify pork spending. They are often used as bribes to get the real spending passed, and thus have an effect on the deficit far beyond their actual dollar value (e.g. Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback in health care.) And they are often used to steer federal money to relatives, contributors, and friends, which is pure corruption. I'd say all three are good reasons to oppose them. But maybe that's just me.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yes, it is diversion - this thread isn't really about how there is little difference between the parties in practice. It is more about how elected officials once AGAIN have lied to their constituents; just so happens that this time it is the republicans.

American Public- "Yea, but that channel was getting boring so I changed it."

 

[UberNeuman]

You know, if you weren't such an idiotic dick maybe you could get people to agree with you more often.

I actually agree with PeshakJang on this one. It was added to a bill meant for the reason the "earmark" was added.
Had it been added to something else I might take issue with it.

The outcome of paintbrush politics... When you have a side wiping their opponent in one color for a long period of time, its not unexpected that the same will happen to the other side...

 

[manimal]

Earmarks usually use money that was going to the state ANYWAY in a large majority of the cases. All they really do is get into into a bill that requires them to use less political capital to get done...

If you dont understand the process try reading...its fundimental....


btw i missplelled that on porpoise...

 

[hal2kilo]

Earmarks usually use money that was going to the state ANYWAY in a large majority of the cases. All they really do is get into into a bill that requires them to use less political capital to get done...

If you dont understand the process try reading...its fundimental....


btw i missplelled that on porpoise...

The problem is that for some reason it's no big deal again (as it should be). But, where are all the whiny Tea Bagger's. I thought that was one the penultimate issues that got them whinners going to the polls. I'm so confused. How appropriate, I have Duck Soup on TV in the background.

 

[manimal]

The problem is that for some reason it's no big deal again (as it should be). But, where are all the whiny Tea Bagger's. I thought that was one the penultimate issues that got them whinners going to the polls. I'm so confused.

dog and pony show for the stupid sadly....


The amount of times I heard John Mcain say pork last year one would think he was working for the pig lobby....


Once again the same tired of Cliche's and smokescreens are trotted out to obfuscate the fact that nothing real was ever really said...

they even invented some new ones this time around...

 

[trenchfoot]

Earmark or not, when the feeding frenzy starts for fed $$$ going to states, only the few idiot politicians standing in the middle of the chamber screaming "no to earmarks!!" will have to go to their constituents and explain why everybody else got theirs and they didn't.

I wonder what the final tally will be pork-wise at the end of the session. I'll be sure to look out for it. Should be really interesting, especially for the anti-pork teabag crew.

 

[wirelessenabled]

The real problem is the overall spending is out of line with current and projected revenue intake. Controlling bloat will require death by a thousand cuts. And the place to take a running start is in the crafting of budgets yet to come.

You're correct PJABBER! It's too bad that GWB took a budget surplus and by cutting taxes and raising spending made it into a $trillion+ budget deficit.

The place to start is by both cutting spending and raising taxes. "Bloat" is not the entire problem nor is cutting it the entire cure. Reduced revenue has a place in the problem as well.