GOP gets it, Dems don't.

[rdean]

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

Yea, less than 1% of the budget. And during his speech on earmarks, Mitch laments on how earmarks paid for a railway system that brought thousands of jobs and connected communities. It was hilarious. What it showed was his base doesn't even know what "earmarks" are.

 

[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

Yea, less than 1% of the budget. And during his speech on earmarks, Mitch laments on how earmarks paid for a railway system that brought thousands of jobs and connected communities. It was hilarious. What it showed was his base doesn't even know what "earmarks" are.

If they're so small then why did Pelosi pledge to reform the whole process? Why did she fail even to do that?
Check my sig line.

 

[rdean]

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:

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

Yea, less than 1% of the budget. And during his speech on earmarks, Mitch laments on how earmarks paid for a railway system that brought thousands of jobs and connected communities. It was hilarious. What it showed was his base doesn't even know what "earmarks" are.

If they're so small then why did Pelosi pledge to reform the whole process? Why did she fail even to do that?
Check my sig line.

Democrats had a decade of Republicans fuckup to fix. They did what they could. Looking at the thread on Republican accomplishments, I was still waiting for at least one.

Hey, is it true that Republicans will hold up unemployment benefits, possibly forcing people to live in boxes, in order to force tax cuts for millionaires? Be very careful before you say "no".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The tax cuts are going to pass, rdean, with the rich getting a one to three year extension, and everybody else getting permanent tax cuts. The Dems will certainly support that, and the GOP does not dare hold out for permanent cuts for the richies.

 

[rdean]

The tax cuts are going to pass, rdean, with the rich getting a one to three year extension, and everybody else getting permanent tax cuts. The Dems will certainly support that, and the GOP does not dare hold out for permanent cuts for the richies.

Why not? I thought Republicans found them to be the "best" Americans.

Ah, what a life. To send the poor off to fight wars. Then to pay congress to cut your taxes. Then use the tax money to send jobs to China. All so you can have so many houses, you can't count them all.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhuMgUkiVOY&feature=related[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

rdean, I am able to county my eight houses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. See?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yea, less than 1% of the budget. And during his speech on earmarks, Mitch laments on how earmarks paid for a railway system that brought thousands of jobs and connected communities. It was hilarious. What it showed was his base doesn't even know what "earmarks" are.

If they're so small then why did Pelosi pledge to reform the whole process? Why did she fail even to do that?
Check my sig line.

Democrats had a decade of Republicans fuckup to fix. They did what they could. Looking at the thread on Republican accomplishments, I was still waiting for at least one.

Hey, is it true that Republicans will hold up unemployment benefits, possibly forcing people to live in boxes, in order to force tax cuts for millionaires? Be very careful before you say "no".

So you agree that Dems are incompetent to pass something like earmark reform. If they're that incompetent why should they be trusted to pass anything worthwhile? Answer: They shouldn't.

Is it true that Obama, who now says he wants bipartisanship, will allow taxes for every working American to rise precipitously during a recession?

 

[midcan5]

Sure, sure, oh how's that swampland working out for you? And as an added cost saving, the GOP will remove the bi Partisan Ethics office, who needs ethics anyway? Nothing changes for the republicans, nothing.


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe this is why no one but Republicans and tea partiers wastes so much time on the subject. The party of know nothing with no solutions laser focuses on all the nothings.

This is just their latest 'trick'

Roy Blunt for United States Senate | WesternFront America

Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue
November 12, 2010 7:00 A.M.
By James M. Inhofe

A congressional earmark moratorium won’t save a single taxpayer dime.

Earmarks have been part of the congressional process since the founding of our country. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution viewed it, appropriating funds is the job of the legislature. Writing in the Federalist, he noted that Congress holds the power of the purse for the very reason that it is closer to the people. The words of Madison and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution say that authorization and appropriations are exclusively the responsibility of the legislative branch. Congress should not cede this authority to the executive branch.

Demagoguing earmarks provides cover for some of the biggest spenders in Congress. Congressional earmarks, for all their infamous notoriety, are not the cause of trillion-dollar federal deficits (of all the discretionary spending that took place in Washington last year, earmarks made up only 1.5 percent).

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R. Okla.) is rated the most conservative senator in 2009 by National Journal and most outstanding senator by Human Events.

Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue - By James M. Inhofe - The Corner - National Review Online

Ron Paul on Earmarks

Channel: C-SPAN
Date: 3/10/2009

Transcript:

Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.

Ron Paul on Earmarks | Ron Paul .com

 

[G.T.]

Maybe this is why no one but Republicans and tea partiers wastes so much time on the subject. The party of know nothing with no solutions laser focuses on all the nothings.

This is just their latest 'trick'

Roy Blunt for United States Senate | WesternFront America

Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue
November 12, 2010 7:00 A.M.
By James M. Inhofe

A congressional earmark moratorium won’t save a single taxpayer dime.

Earmarks have been part of the congressional process since the founding of our country. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution viewed it, appropriating funds is the job of the legislature. Writing in the Federalist, he noted that Congress holds the power of the purse for the very reason that it is closer to the people. The words of Madison and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution say that authorization and appropriations are exclusively the responsibility of the legislative branch. Congress should not cede this authority to the executive branch.

Demagoguing earmarks provides cover for some of the biggest spenders in Congress. Congressional earmarks, for all their infamous notoriety, are not the cause of trillion-dollar federal deficits (of all the discretionary spending that took place in Washington last year, earmarks made up only 1.5 percent).

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R. Okla.) is rated the most conservative senator in 2009 by National Journal and most outstanding senator by Human Events.

Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue - By James M. Inhofe - The Corner - National Review Online

Ron Paul on Earmarks

Channel: C-SPAN
Date: 3/10/2009

Transcript:

Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.

Ron Paul on Earmarks | Ron Paul .com

This, and the fact there's people giggling at Trusting the Dems when they said they'd end them, but are now subsequently trusting Mitch McConnell (with HIS record!?!?!?!) to end them. Partisan shilling all day every day at USMB.

 

[The Rabbi]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

 

[G.T.]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

And you somehow trust McConnell. I know, I know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi does not trust himself. He knows better.

 

[Claudette]

Its a fucking red herring.

I dont care if they do or dont get rid of it.


It was nothing but a bunch of right wing caviling anyway.

Gee. I seem to remember when Barry was running he vowed to end earmarks.

Guess that was a red herring too huh??

 

[The Rabbi]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

And you somehow trust McConnell. I know, I know.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to deliver even their promised modest reform?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi does not trust himself. He knows better.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to achieve even modest reform as they promised?

 

[007]

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.

That's right, one to two percent. But, if congress can't trim the small spending off the budget, how in the HELL do you expect them to take care of the big shit? Seems to me that if congress can't eliminate ear marks, then they're not serious about cutting spending AT ALL!

 

[G.T.]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

And you somehow trust McConnell. I know, I know.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to deliver even their promised modest reform?

wtf kind of point are you trying to make?> You're pre-supposing that I actually BELIEVED they WANTED to deliver.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-fucking-lations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Rabbi does not trust himself. He knows better.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to achieve even modest reform as they promised?

Rabbi is doing a wonderful job of proving he's both a liar and a fool. This is a news item from the UA Today; hard to find for their are dozens of 'hit' pieces (Newsmax) if one googles "Pelosi earmarks". He lies about what earmarks are and lies about the speaker. Rabbi has no integrity and isn't smart enough to convince any but the echo chamber of his many partisan and hateful allegations.

Democrats: Identify pork sponsors
Pelosi plans to target anonymous ‘earmarks'
By Peter Eisler and Kathy Kiely
USA TODAY , NOV. 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative “earmarks” to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her first agenda item after being elected House speaker will be a vote to require sponsors of earmarks to be identified. Currently, lawmakers can remain anonymous in sponsoring an earmark, which is language in a bill that directs funds or tax benefits to a business, project or institution.

“There has to be transparency,” the California congresswoman told USA TODAY last week. “I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic.”

Pelosi said some earmarks “are worthy,” and they can be a legitimate way for Congress to force fiscal priorities on the White House.

House Republican leaders adopted a disclosure rule in September, but no earmark sponsors have been identified under the rule because it effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007.

Congress begins a lame-duck session today to consider unfinished 2007 appropriations bills. Those bills could give members another chance to insert anonymous earmarks. Regardless, the Republican rule expires at year's end, so Democrats would have to pass their own disclosure requirement.

Earmarking has drawn complaints from groups such as the National Taxpayers Union that say anonymity encourages wasteful spending. Conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have said Republicans' failure to bring accountability to the process helped fuel the party's losses last week.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, cited earmark disclosure as one of several “needed reforms” that Republicans should back in the new Congress. “We hope that the party in which most of us have invested our trust will learn the right lessons” from the elections, he said.

Last month, a USA TODAY investigation found that many special interests got earmarks after hiring lobbyists who were relatives of lawmakers or staffers affiliated with the House and Senate appropriations committees.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000. One famous example was an earmark that set aside millions for a “bridge to nowhere” — a span over a remote Alaskan waterway to a sparsely populated island.

“You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for,” Pelosi said. “Or if you do, you have to know whose it is.”

PS Of course Rabbi and the others - echo chamber all - won't read the news item posted above. He and they will continue to post lies for very good reason. That is all they have.

 

[Bfgrn]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

In the last budget, there were MORE Republican earmarks than Democrat earmarks. And during the Bush years when Republicans had full control, they set RECORDS for earmarks. HOW MANY lies will you swallow before you fucking explode?