GOP gets it, Dems don't.

[The Rabbi]

One of the first things Republicans are talking about getting rid of, is the Independent Ethics Board. Go figure.

They did the same with Paygo..and blocked it when President Obama tried to get it back into the way business is done in congress.

Wait, I thought you always said Bush did away with Paygo? Changing your story now?

Stay with me now. President Bush belonged to the ____________ party.

Speaking of changing, why are you changing the subject to the Ethics Board when this thread is about earmarks?

Because the Republicans like to talk a good game..but in reality it's theater.

I guess if you can't argue you change the subject.

Cognition is tough..ain't it?

Posting irrelevant shit again? You maintained in other threads that pres Bush did away with Paygo. Even after I pointed out he was not in Congress, which sets these things.
Republicans like to talk a good game? Which party promised "the most open and ethical congress in history" Which one pledged to be mroe open on earmarks? Which party got its ass handed to it two weeks ago? Now, which party looks like it will actually achieve elimination of earmarks?
I realize that admitting when you're wrong is tough. But you have an excellent opportunity to man up and do it.
Or you can be a puerile little wienie and change the subject again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Has anyone every asked the quesiton: What percentage of the Federal Budget are Earmarks?
One more time, the whole issue is another canard, used by Republicans to avoid real isues and real reform.


Answer: "GAO defines "earmarking" as "designating any portion of a lump-sum amount for particular purposes by means of legislative language." Earmarking can also mean "dedicating collections by law for a specific purpose." [97] In some cases, legislative language may direct federal agencies to spend funds for specific projects. In other cases, earmarks refer to directions in appropriation committee reports, which are not law. Various organizations have estimated the total number and amount of earmarks. An estimated 16,000 earmarks containing nearly $48 billion in spending were inserted into larger, often unrelated bills during 2005.[98] While the number of earmarks has grown in the past decade, the total amount of earmarked funds is approximately 1-2 percent of federal spending"

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Earmarks

ONE to TWO Percent of FEDERAL SPENDING!

What say you Rabbi?

 

[The Rabbi]

Has anyone every asked the quesiton: What percentage of the Federal Budget are Earmarks?
One more time, the whole issue is another canard, used by Republicans to avoid real isues and real reform.




What say you Rabbi?

If it was so negligible why did Democrats run on it in '06? If it was so negligible why were they not able to do even the modest reform they promised?
Life sucks when you're wrong.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

And you believe this.

This is an attempt at comedy by Sen. McConnell. I am not amused.

 

[shintao]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

The Democrats have been for stopping ear marks for years. Where were you?? And McConnell?

 

[shintao]

Earmarks are just small pork barrel projects. SO ending earmarks only mean, that the thousands of them each year will not piggyback another bill, creating further legislation flowing through congress, and less attention paid to the nations real business. It means these corrupt bastards are not afraid to do it to your face.

 

[Sallow]

Wait, I thought you always said Bush did away with Paygo? Changing your story now?

Stay with me now. President Bush belonged to the ____________ party.



Because the Republicans like to talk a good game..but in reality it's theater.

I guess if you can't argue you change the subject.

Cognition is tough..ain't it?

Posting irrelevant shit again? You maintained in other threads that pres Bush did away with Paygo. Even after I pointed out he was not in Congress, which sets these things.
Republicans like to talk a good game? Which party promised "the most open and ethical congress in history" Which one pledged to be mroe open on earmarks? Which party got its ass handed to it two weeks ago? Now, which party looks like it will actually achieve elimination of earmarks?
I realize that admitting when you're wrong is tough. But you have an excellent opportunity to man up and do it.
Or you can be a puerile little wienie and change the subject again.

Reading is fundamental.

Or maybe not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Has anyone every asked the quesiton: What percentage of the Federal Budget are Earmarks?
One more time, the whole issue is another canard, used by Republicans to avoid real isues and real reform.




What say you Rabbi?

If it was so negligible why did Democrats run on it in '06? If it was so negligible why were they not able to do even the modest reform they promised?
Life sucks when you're wrong.

One thing about you Rabbi, you have no shame (or integrity). You have plenty of partisanship, so much it smells. ONE to TWO PERCENT of the Federal Budget, Rabbi. That is all that earmarks account for. It's chump change.

 

[The Rabbi]

Has anyone every asked the quesiton: What percentage of the Federal Budget are Earmarks?
One more time, the whole issue is another canard, used by Republicans to avoid real isues and real reform.




What say you Rabbi?

If it was so negligible why did Democrats run on it in '06? If it was so negligible why were they not able to do even the modest reform they promised?
Life sucks when you're wrong.

One thing about you Rabbi, you have no shame (or integrity). You have plenty of partisanship, so much it smells. ONE to TWO PERCENT of the Federal Budget, Rabbi. That is all that earmarks account for. It's chump change.

Not disputing that.
But if it were so negligible why did the Dems run on it in '06? Why were they not able to institure even modest reform?
You can't answer teh question because you are a partisan hack of the worst kind and a dishonest debater.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If it was so negligible why did Democrats run on it in '06? If it was so negligible why were they not able to do even the modest reform they promised?
Life sucks when you're wrong.

One thing about you Rabbi, you have no shame (or integrity). You have plenty of partisanship, so much it smells. ONE to TWO PERCENT of the Federal Budget, Rabbi. That is all that earmarks account for. It's chump change.

Not disputing that.
But if it were so negligible why did the Dems run on it in '06? Why were they not able to institure even modest reform?
You can't answer teh question because you are a partisan hack of the worst kind and a dishonest debater.

Again, no shame. You are a liar Rabbi. A liar by commission and a liar by omission. I've posted what the Democrats acomplished, and what they tried to accomplish, all without the help - but with plenty of roadblocks - by the Republicans. It's no wonder you support them, you are of the same (lack of ) character.
In my 32 years of law enforcement, I arrested, and helped send to prison people with more integrity than you and your pals McConnell, Boehner, Gingrich and Palin.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

And his overnight 180 on earmarks has nothing to do with him being reelected as minority leader right?

It doesn't seem to me that any of them "get it."

 

[The Rabbi]

One thing about you Rabbi, you have no shame (or integrity). You have plenty of partisanship, so much it smells. ONE to TWO PERCENT of the Federal Budget, Rabbi. That is all that earmarks account for. It's chump change.

Not disputing that.
But if it were so negligible why did the Dems run on it in '06? Why were they not able to institure even modest reform?
You can't answer teh question because you are a partisan hack of the worst kind and a dishonest debater.

Again, no shame. You are a liar Rabbi. A liar by commission and a liar by omission. I've posted what the Democrats acomplished, and what they tried to accomplish, all without the help - but with plenty of roadblocks - by the Republicans. It's no wonder you support them, you are of the same (lack of ) character.
In my 32 years of law enforcement, I arrested, and helped send to prison people with more integrity than you and your pals McConnell, Boehner, Gingrich and Palin.

The bigger the pig, the louder they scream when stuck. I must have stuck you pretty good, piggy.
I ask a question and get called a liar.

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

And his overnight 180 on earmarks has nothing to do with him being reelected as minority leader right?

It doesn't seem to me that any of them "get it."

I don't know. I don't know who challenged him for the position, if anyone. If you have some facts, let's hear it.
What seems obvious to me is that there was a strong faction among the GOP that wanted earmarks. SOmehow they got the message that if the GOP was to have any integrity they needed to tackle this issue. They did so. Admirably, I might add. No forming committees to study the problem and report back in 2 years the day before Christmas.
Pelosi and the Dums never got that far. all of that got forgotten two seconds after they were sworn in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

From Pelosi's web site 3/27/07:

"This week the House will vote on H. Con. Res. 99, the Democratic budget resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability...Pay-as-you-go budget rules contained in the resolution are critical to establishing fiscal integrity and will begin to reverse the record budget deficits..."

Yeah, PayGo. What ever happened to that idea from the great Nance? And how many trillions of deficit dollars in their budgets since?

Have a good laugh Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

March 2007? Mighty convenient, red ranger. Why don't you tell us happend in the next 18 months. This is what we get when morons take material out of context.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

From Pelosi's web site 3/27/07:

"This week the House will vote on H. Con. Res. 99, the Democratic budget resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability...Pay-as-you-go budget rules contained in the resolution are critical to establishing fiscal integrity and will begin to reverse the record budget deficits..."

Yeah, PayGo. What ever happened to that idea from the great Nance? And how many trillions of deficit dollars in their budgets since?

Have a good laugh Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

March 2007? Mighty convenient, red ranger. Why don't you tell us happend in the next 18 months. This is what we get when morons take material out of context.

What happened? The Dems spent like drunken sailors and the GOP went along for the ride and got blamed. Then the economy went into the shitter.
Why do you ask?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, Rab , for proving the point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks, Rab , for proving the point.

No problem. Glad to help show the Dems are a bunch of spineless weasel cowards who cannot be trusted no matter what.
I got your back, Jake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not disputing that.
But if it were so negligible why did the Dems run on it in '06? Why were they not able to institure even modest reform?
You can't answer teh question because you are a partisan hack of the worst kind and a dishonest debater.

Again, no shame. You are a liar Rabbi. A liar by commission and a liar by omission. I've posted what the Democrats acomplished, and what they tried to accomplish, all without the help - but with plenty of roadblocks - by the Republicans. It's no wonder you support them, you are of the same (lack of ) character.
In my 32 years of law enforcement, I arrested, and helped send to prison people with more integrity than you and your pals McConnell, Boehner, Gingrich and Palin.

The bigger the pig, the louder they scream when stuck. I must have stuck you pretty good, piggy.
I ask a question and get called a liar.

Rabbi, I didn't call you a liar, you are a liar. You are also a RW partisan and support the failed policies of GWB and RR. Now, I don't believe you're stupid, I suspect you are motivate by (in order) greed, hate (prejudice) and fear ("damn, a black man is president and I'm only a slum lord").
Though I'm sure you're not stupid, please don't assume I beieve you're very bright, you're not. The facts are, you are ignorant of history and will one day suffer the consequences. I hope they are simply monetary, but I don't discount history and the fate of those such as you when the hoi polloi have finally had enough.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, no shame. You are a liar Rabbi. A liar by commission and a liar by omission. I've posted what the Democrats acomplished, and what they tried to accomplish, all without the help - but with plenty of roadblocks - by the Republicans. It's no wonder you support them, you are of the same (lack of ) character.
In my 32 years of law enforcement, I arrested, and helped send to prison people with more integrity than you and your pals McConnell, Boehner, Gingrich and Palin.

The bigger the pig, the louder they scream when stuck. I must have stuck you pretty good, piggy.
I ask a question and get called a liar.

Rabbi, I didn't call you a liar, you are a liar. You are also a RW partisan and support the failed policies of GWB and RR. Now, I don't believe you're stupid, I suspect you are motivate by (in order) greed, hate (prejudice) and fear ("damn, a black man is president and I'm only a slum lord").
Though I'm sure you're not stupid, please don't assume I beieve you're very bright, you're not. The facts are, you are ignorant of history and will one day suffer the consequences. I hope they are simply monetary, but I don't discount history and the fate of those such as you when the hoi polloi have finally had enough.

I think you need to go catch some rye while you're still behind, piggy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From Pelosi's web site 3/27/07:

"This week the House will vote on H. Con. Res. 99, the Democratic budget resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability...Pay-as-you-go budget rules contained in the resolution are critical to establishing fiscal integrity and will begin to reverse the record budget deficits..."

Yeah, PayGo. What ever happened to that idea from the great Nance? And how many trillions of deficit dollars in their budgets since?

Have a good laugh Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

March 2007? Mighty convenient, red ranger. Why don't you tell us happend in the next 18 months. This is what we get when morons take material out of context.

What happened? The Dems spent like drunken sailors and the GOP went along for the ride and got blamed. Then the economy went into the shitter.
Why do you ask?

The budgets were in line with the incredulous Bush budgets from 2001 to 2006, which were in line with GOP budgets and Bill Clinton of 1992-2006.

The recession when the system cracked because of Republican GOP irresponsibility for 12 years and compliant GOP and Dem presidents.

Can't get away from that inconvenient truth, can you, Rab?