driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama's statement said. Earmarks totaled at least $3.8 billion - a figure used by the House Appropriations Committee. But the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense calculates that there are an astonishing 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 all politicians lie. robin of da hood is no different. those who thought he was are foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Yes but those earmarks were not doled out by seniority, so once again Obama can do no wrong in my eyes. :highfive: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 What is 7.7 billion divided by the non-lazy Americans still left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Is it just me or are those two quotes not in contradiction with each other? Cannot dole out money by seniority does not mean that they can't still have earmarks. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Is it just me or are those two quotes not in contradiction with each other? Cannot dole out money by seniority does not mean that they can't still have earmarks. Am I missing something? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" again? It's a totally valid point. Obama said we're not going to earmark based on seniority, but rather by merit. Where does that say that earmarks will be done away with? This is not semantics, this is understanding the English language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's a totally valid point. Obama said we're not going to earmark based on seniority, but rather by merit. Where does that say that earmarks will be done away with? This is not semantics, this is understanding the English language. Watch out, misunderstanding the language is the cornerstone of thier philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's a totally valid point. Obama said we're not going to earmark based on seniority, but rather by merit. Where does that say that earmarks will be done away with? This is not semantics, this is understanding the English language. Det is right. It appears Obama failed 3rd grade English as well as 3rd grade Math. Oh well, dummies in, dummies out. It would be nice to get someone smart in there for a change instead of the losers for the past 20 years....one can only hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Someone has half their brain tied behind their back. :crinkle crinkle: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's a totally valid point. Obama said we're not going to earmark based on seniority, but rather by merit. Where does that say that earmarks will be done away with? This is not semantics, this is understanding the English language. Earmarks on merit. The whole point of earmarks is that they don't have any merit except to the person inserting them. Which is why they're tacked on and not debated as to their "merit". And Obama was/is clearly pandering, with plausible deniability built in, to the people who are sick and tired of "porky" earmarks. So it is entirely semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 GOP hates earmarks - except the ones its members sponsor Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, included $142,500 for emergency repairs to the Sam Rayburn Library and Museum in Bonham, Texas. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., joined state colleagues to include $1.425 million for Nevada "statewide bus facilities." The top two Republicans on Congress' money committees also inserted local projects. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, would spend $3.8 million on a Needles, Calif., highway. Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on Senate Appropriations, backs earmarks including a $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss. He defends earmarks. "You have to take these on a case-by-case basis," he said. "A lot of these projects are justified." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 GOP hates earmarks - except the ones its members sponsor I was shocked to find that 40% of the 8000-9000 earmarks in the spending bill were thrown in by Republicans. Frankly it disgusts me. Like I said in another thread, we should throw them all out. Where can I get my libertarian's membership card? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Life in America today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I was shocked to find that 40% of the 8000-9000 earmarks in the spending bill were thrown in by Republicans. Frankly it disgusts me. Like I said in another thread, we should throw them all out. Where can I get my libertarian's membership card? The shocking part is the under 50% part. The pubs are the ones that would want to trash the stimulus bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The shocking part is the under 50% part. The pubs are the ones that would want to trash the stimulus bill. See I would think the Republicans wouldn't want to thrown any earmarks in there so they would have more credibility when complaining about the stimulus bill. Never in my life have I been so disgusted with politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Earmarks on merit. The whole point of earmarks is that they don't have any merit except to the person inserting them. Which is why they're tacked on and not debated as to their "merit". And Obama was/is clearly pandering, with plausible deniability built in, to the people who are sick and tired of "porky" earmarks. So it is entirely semantics. Here is a quote from a letter written by a Tennessee congresswoman. I don't know much about this lady, but I agree with her assessment of earmarks. Many have been wasted but some do serve a purpose. Granting earmarks for specific purposes doesn't sound like a terrible idea. We could debate the Presidential line item veto? In today's political climate the word "earmark" is a dirty word. It conjures up images of corruption and shady backroom deals, which sends millions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars to frivolous and unnecessary federal projects. Unfortunately, that reputation is well deserved. In the past, several years millions in earmark pork projects have attempted to fund the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska and the creation of a tropical rain forest in Iowa. These projects are a clear abuse of a legislative tool that was supposed to be a great equalizer for the American people. The earmark was created so smaller states could get their share of federal government money. Without earmarks, many roads in rural Tennessee could not have been built. Certain earmarks helped construct water treatment plants and railroad crossings throughout our state. Earmarks, if gotten in a clean, transparent, and ethical manner get critical federal dollars to the projects that need them the most. There is nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Here is a quote from a letter written by a Tennessee congresswoman. I don't know much about this lady, but I agree with her assessment of earmarks. Many have been wasted but some do serve a purpose. Granting earmarks for specific purposes doesn't sound like a terrible idea. We could debate the Presidential line item veto? The ends justify the means? Sorry, not buying it. If they're that important don't slap them on a bill, put them up to a vote and let them stand - or fall - on their own merits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 When times are good, you can build your ass backwards roads in Tennessee and your rain forests in Iowa, but shouldn't the Feds be buckling their belts while throwing away our billions to millionaires? What bothers me most about all these stimulus bills is more the rush to pass them with no debate as much as the waste. It's dangerous when you aren't allowed to discuss what is in it. Very suspicious to me and opens the door for all kinds of fraud and waste. And I don't buy for a minute that they were rushed through because the "economy will fall apart in the next two days" argument anymore. Hopefully, Obama's budget will get more than the lip service of Nanci Pelosi, Barney Frank and Harry Reid deciding which one has to wait to suckle Obama's titty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The ends justify the means? Sorry, not buying it. If they're that important don't slap them on a bill, put them up to a vote and let them stand - or fall - on their own merits. Bingo. A rep/senator should be able to make a clear case why the dollars they are taking from one person to give to another are more beneficial to country in the hands of the recipient than in the hands of the victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 What is 7.7 billion divided by the non-lazy Americans still left? It is not possible to divide by zero. The shocking part is the under 50% part. The pubs are the ones that would want to trash the stimulus bill. My thought exactly. Throwing in earmarks enables them to say "someone threw in earmarks". All that is required is for Rush's listeners to hear it and the job is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm not a big fan of earmarks myself. I live in a red state that hasn't voted for a Democratic President in at least 40 years (if ever) but we struggle with pork spending locally (like everyone…because we are dealing with politicians). It’s used as a payoff and most people know it. I still can't really argue with someone who thinks a claim from the President on the process of how earmarks are determined is a contradiction to passing a bill with earmarks. Was this on Rush today or something? I'm guessing you didn't cook this up yourself. "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama's statement said. The ends justify the means?Sorry, not buying it. I don't really care. There is typically little point in arguing politics to anyone let alone on a web forum with strangers (with varying degree of strangeness). If they're that important don't slap them on a bill, put them up to a vote and let them stand - or fall - on their own merits. I don’t know if the whole earmark thing started because they thought it would be too time consuming to get the entire fed involved every time they want to build a water treatment plant or fix a major utility type issue. The ends justify the means? Sounds more like the last administration to me. Just seems like everyone's jumping on the President because he hasn't radically changed the way that hundreds of reps have done business for decades in his first month or so. I don't care who you vote for. You should realize they are both going to waste your money... just on different things. If they got rid of earmarks tomorrow... Do you think government waste or pet projects would go away? They'd find another way to get highways and buildings named after themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 My thought exactly. Throwing in earmarks enables them to say "someone threw in earmarks". All that is required is for Rush's listeners to hear it and the job is done. So now you're on board with this patented, condescending, lame excuse too. I expected better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 I don't really care. There is typically little point in arguing politics to anyone let alone on a web forum with strangers (with varying degree of strangeness). So why are you then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So now you're on board with this patented, condescending, lame excuse too. I expected better. Not an excuse. Proportionally, more of the earmarks are Republican than Democrat. It's therefore odd to hear howls of Republican outrage about earmarks, isn't it? BTW, either way we're talking about a very small percentage of the overall bill here but let that pass for the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.