House Passes 1.1 Trillion With 5,000 Earmarks? Say it Ain't So

[namvet]

With the economy in the state that it is, I just can't believe that Congress can't control themselves.

Why is it hard to believe? The American people won't hold them accountable for it so of course they're going to do it.

Most of the American people have no right to complain about govt spending, they have not done very well on managing their money either.

good reason to tax them to death huh ????

 

[namvet]

We've had earmarks since our very first budget. Do you really think Obama is going to do what the founders couldn't. That isn't an excuse but a simple fact. And you want to talk about now? Well now we have a 65% decline in earmarks. This is no doubt the largest reduction in history. No congress, republican or democrat, has accomplished this in the past. What is it you want me to bash Obama over?

Here is my position: if it is a choice between 5,000 earmarks and 15,000 earmarks I'll take the 5,000. If that makes you unhappy I really couldn't care...

I don't want you to bash Obama, you don't have it in you, Pete. You would follow him over a cliff, I understand that. But still...and I say it again, with this economy the way it is, and massive debt increases we can't afford the 3.9 Billion dollars. Let alone the 1.1 trillion budget bill, I will get to that in another thread.

Oh give me a break. I'll bet a dollar against your nickle that you had no clue how grotesque pork had become under republicans nor that even today republicans are still amongst the leads of the pork pack. Whine all you like about 'what we can't afford' but until those you vote for listen don't expect me to...

so the dummies need to catch up on their pork chops right ?????

 

[namvet]

So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from $700,000 for a shrimp fishing project in Maryland to $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative to $200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000.

way ta go dummies !!!!!

 

[antagon]

there's different schools of thought as to what the government should do when the economy sux.

with obama, and a ship full of old-school democrats in charge, you shouldve been aware that the government was going to spend time and a bunch of money trying to micromanage recovery.

the republican 'cut taxes and it'll all work out strategy' may be up against its diminishing returns if bush's fiscal disaster cuts 5-6 years ago had a lesson at all. at any rate, if you wanted more of that hack-job stimulus-check economic strategy, you shouldve voted twice.

earmarks are a very valid part of government funding. that it became like crack for republicans during the last decade has been remediated. change.

wonder how many marks the GOP had in the package. hypocrit votes. makes it worse than those who supported the bill to me.

relax. theres still senate scrutiny. the house always shoots for the sun.

 

[Vast LWC]

the CATO institute!....ouch.

We don't know what numbers Mr. Piperni was looking at when he created that picture or what spending specifically he was referring to or at what point in time. You're using a visual aide that you don't understand.

The national debt increased by roughly $5 trillion under Bush, which was an absolute abomination. Under Obama it has increased another $2 trillion and they're prepared to raise the debt ceiling another trillion. That's over one-third of what was spent during the Bush administration and he hasn't been in office even a full year yet.

That aside, pointing to somebody else's wrong to justify your own doesn't make what you've done any less wrong. The bottom line is debt spending is taking us down a quick path to national bankruptcy and it needs to stop immediately. It doesn't matter what Obama's predecessors have done. He's the president now and has the power to stop it.

That is patently false.

1.2 Trillion of this year's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit was already in place by January 7th, before Obama was inaugurated.

So it has only increased another 100 Billion under Obama. So far.

 

[SFC Ollie]

the CATO institute!....ouch.

We don't know what numbers Mr. Piperni was looking at when he created that picture or what spending specifically he was referring to or at what point in time. You're using a visual aide that you don't understand.

The national debt increased by roughly $5 trillion under Bush, which was an absolute abomination. Under Obama it has increased another $2 trillion and they're prepared to raise the debt ceiling another trillion. That's over one-third of what was spent during the Bush administration and he hasn't been in office even a full year yet.

That aside, pointing to somebody else's wrong to justify your own doesn't make what you've done any less wrong. The bottom line is debt spending is taking us down a quick path to national bankruptcy and it needs to stop immediately. It doesn't matter what Obama's predecessors have done. He's the president now and has the power to stop it.

That is patently false.

1.2 Trillion of this year's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit was already in place by January 7th, before Obama was inaugurated.

So it has only increased another 100 Billion under Obama. So far.

Counting moneys that Bush did claim would be returned? How about all the projected spending this years congress has already approved and plan on approving even more. This trillion wasn't approved by Bush, when does it count? Fact is that this congress is spending money like it actually does grow on a tree. And if it doesn't stop soon the USA will not be a financial power to anyone except maybe a few 3rd world countries. And current deficit is still 1.5 trillion + and growing.

 

[namvet]

 

[Meister]

We've had earmarks since our very first budget. Do you really think Obama is going to do what the founders couldn't. That isn't an excuse but a simple fact. And you want to talk about now? Well now we have a 65% decline in earmarks. This is no doubt the largest reduction in history. No congress, republican or democrat, has accomplished this in the past. What is it you want me to bash Obama over?

Here is my position: if it is a choice between 5,000 earmarks and 15,000 earmarks I'll take the 5,000. If that makes you unhappy I really couldn't care...

I don't want you to bash Obama, you don't have it in you, Pete. You would follow him over a cliff, I understand that. But still...and I say it again, with this economy the way it is, and massive debt increases we can't afford the 3.9 Billion dollars. Let alone the 1.1 trillion budget bill, I will get to that in another thread.

Oh give me a break. I'll bet a dollar against your nickle that you had no clue how grotesque pork had become under republicans nor that even today republicans are still amongst the leads of the pork pack. Whine all you like about 'what we can't afford' but until those you vote for listen don't expect me to...

I'm so sorry you lost that dollar...I hope it wasn't your last, Pete. I was complaining about how the republicans were spending under the Bush administration. I was complaining about how Bush couldn't find his veto pen when all this spending was going on.
I see you can't complain about how Obama spends the money, or his Congress, and Senate....like I said he would lead you over a cliff, and you would go willingly. That's the difference between you and me, Pete.

 

[Bfgrn]

from the boston globe??? yeah right

The pie chart, via economist Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon

McCain's bizarre earmark obsession | FP Passport

 

[Sarah G]

And no earmarks for Republicans in it?

Just what is an earmark anyway? Considering the stimulus plan most anything in there can be considered an earmark.

eramraks are the same as a bribe......put a mill in there for my pet project in my home district and you have my vote.....there were 5000 of those.....wonder who got more than one....

and yep the dems are as bad as the pubs.....yet you keep voting the same idiots into office and expect things to change......

Of course Manu. They were sent there to work for their state. It's their job. That ratio of earmarks to spending is very low, you all just need a different thing everyday to complain about.

 

[namvet]

from the boston globe??? yeah right

The pie chart, via economist Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon

McCain's bizarre earmark obsession | FP Passport

completely bogus. thats not even close to reality.

 

[Bfgrn]

from the boston globe??? yeah right

The pie chart, via economist Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon

McCain's bizarre earmark obsession | FP Passport

completely bogus. thats not even close to reality.

It's simple math you moron... the above chart represents 0.5% of the Federal budget. The current earmarks represent an even smaller sliver... 0.35%...that's 0.0035


EARMARKS FOR FUN AND PROFIT.

Brookings' Thomas Mann is tired of the diversionary fracas surrounding earmarks:

Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget. In most cases, they don’t add to federal expenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise be allocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits. While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor one. It would do nothing to slow the rate of federal spending or improve our long-term budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.

Representative James Clyburn goes even further in the Politico. Earmarks, he argues, are a good thing. This system of government we have, the one where we elect congressmen from different districts, is built to ensure that federal funds are responsive to local needs. Earmarks are that process in action.

It used to be that I'd link to Earmark Watch's interactive map which lists earmarks by district. But that seems to be down. So if you want to page through the earmarks that are giving everyone such heartburn, head over to the Appropriations Committee web site and download the "statements" portion of the Omnibus bill's various sections.

Most people, when digging through these lists, end up surprised by how worthy the majority of the projects prove. Sometimes, of course, earmarks fund the comically parochial: You can read about those projects on John McCain's twitter feed. But more often, they're sensible local priorities. Pat Roberts of Kansas secures $250,000 so Topeka, Kansas can "establish a secure database that connects law enforcement and emergency management personnel to private sector resources needed in a catastrophic event." Congressman Ralph Hall appropriates $143,000 for a "drop-out prevention program" in Mount Pleasant, Texas. Congressman Bill Foster gets $76,000 for "occupational training programs" at Sauk Valley Community College in Sauk, Illinois. "May include equipment," specifies the earmark. These appropriations rarely make McCain's twitter feed, of course. But they're the reality of the practice.

Irony Update: According to a document floating around the House of Representatives, Ron Paul has requested over $126,000,000 in earmarks.

 

[namvet]

The pie chart, via economist Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon

McCain's bizarre earmark obsession | FP Passport

completely bogus. thats not even close to reality.

It's simple math you moron... the above chart represents 0.5% of the Federal budget. The current earmarks represent an even smaller sliver... 0.35%...that's 0.0035


EARMARKS FOR FUN AND PROFIT.

Brookings' Thomas Mann is tired of the diversionary fracas surrounding earmarks:

Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget. In most cases, they don’t add to federal expenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise be allocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits. While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor one. It would do nothing to slow the rate of federal spending or improve our long-term budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.

Representative James Clyburn goes even further in the Politico. Earmarks, he argues, are a good thing. This system of government we have, the one where we elect congressmen from different districts, is built to ensure that federal funds are responsive to local needs. Earmarks are that process in action.

It used to be that I'd link to Earmark Watch's interactive map which lists earmarks by district. But that seems to be down. So if you want to page through the earmarks that are giving everyone such heartburn, head over to the Appropriations Committee web site and download the "statements" portion of the Omnibus bill's various sections.

Most people, when digging through these lists, end up surprised by how worthy the majority of the projects prove. Sometimes, of course, earmarks fund the comically parochial: You can read about those projects on John McCain's twitter feed. But more often, they're sensible local priorities. Pat Roberts of Kansas secures $250,000 so Topeka, Kansas can "establish a secure database that connects law enforcement and emergency management personnel to private sector resources needed in a catastrophic event." Congressman Ralph Hall appropriates $143,000 for a "drop-out prevention program" in Mount Pleasant, Texas. Congressman Bill Foster gets $76,000 for "occupational training programs" at Sauk Valley Community College in Sauk, Illinois. "May include equipment," specifies the earmark. These appropriations rarely make McCain's twitter feed, of course. But they're the reality of the practice.

Irony Update: According to a document floating around the House of Representatives, Ron Paul has requested over $126,000,000 in earmarks.

who's math you fuckin idiot ???? they hide pork spending from the public. ever hear of behind closed doors???
bogus totally fuckin bogus !!!!

 

[uscitizen]

I have a question and this is a respecful question for all those who voted for President Obama keeping in mind, I have a daughter who I am very proud of who voted for President Obama as well. During the campaign, President Obama brought many young people, and old and , those of color, together on the promise of change to Washington D.C. That change included, openness, getting rid of paid lobbyists, and yes earmarks or pork spending, just to name a few. All these things I will admit to you as a Republican held great appeal to me especially someone who has long thought the DoD was in dire need of all those things. However, all that said, do you think now that the house and senate have gone on a year long spending binge for everything, from turtle tunnels, studying mice and my personal favorite is the one in SC where they used Stimulus money to hire someone to locate more Stimulus money. Does all this and with the latest thing, and the things to come, square with all those campaign promises that so many thought would finally change Washington for the better? or do you think that congress, has basically ignored the Presidents campaign promises and used his election as an excuse to ram through everything they please? I have my thoughts on the matter, and as most of you know, I am one that will tell you point blank when I say congress I make no distinction between republican or democrat, past or present.

In recent history all politicians say all kind of good stuff to get elected and then do what they please. They get away with it because of our stort term memory and being programmed by the vidiot tube/panel.

Remember Bush's promises? Not into nation building, for balanced budget, smaller govt, etc.

So I take it by your response then that you agree that congress is bascially watering down the message for President Obama by it's spending to the point where the "Change" message looks more or less like the "Same old thing"? I'm quite well aware of the Bush Administrations negatives however as the Bush Administration is no longer in power about the only thing we can do there is to say, "oh well". However, in this case if you as a democrat feel that congress is not holding up it's end of the bargin then you can do something. Let me give you jsut one small example, it's not secret that progressives and many Democrats want healthcare reform but what perhaps is lost in all this is, so do a lot of Republicans. Do you know that had we not bailed out GM and Chrysler, to prevent bankruptcy which by the way they did anyway, and done the Stimulus which so far has failed miserably in terms of job creation then guess what, all that money spent could have been spent on a robust fix of Medicare program for everyone. Just a thought.

I have seen no indications that a lot fo Republicans want health care reform.

Unless you call wanting to do away with medcare/medicaid a reform?

 

[slackjawed]

I wish they would have earmarked a couple million to put ALL of the members of the House and the Senate, as well as the entire White House Administration on a nice cruise ship to Somalia.....

 

[Big Black Dog]

Guess our country is going to be like my ex-wife. Keep spending money until there is no more to spend and nobody will give you credit. Then, being unable to produce any cash to buy anything, simply become a freeloader off of relatives and whoever else will give a handout. How do you spell large new Third World country? I'd like to thank all the Democrats and our terrific (sic) President Obama. Special thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

 

[uscitizen]

Why is it hard to believe? The American people won't hold them accountable for it so of course they're going to do it.

Most of the American people have no right to complain about govt spending, they have not done very well on managing their money either.

One of the most ignorant posts I have ever read. Thank you for taking the ignorant posts to a new height.

I must know you from another board?

Or are you just a natural asshole?

 

[Meister]

Most of the American people have no right to complain about govt spending, they have not done very well on managing their money either.

One of the most ignorant posts I have ever read. Thank you for taking the ignorant posts to a new height.

I must know you from another board?

Or are you just a natural asshole?

You don't know me from anywhere else, UScitizen....but I see you don't take criticism very well.
Just don't post ignorant posts as you did with that one, and I won't call you on it.

 

[namvet]

every prez/house/senate since Johnson has wanted reform. its been pass the buck ever since. we have to fix it but............they've ripped off medicare cause it was a golden goose. and never paid back a red cent.

of course the GOP wants reform. but not at the expense of imploding the economy. fix it. the Dums have now thrown millions/trillions at it.

for christ sake why didn't Osama do it back in Jan when he had the $$$$??? instead he's ops all our $$$$ away on useless stim packs/pork. including this one. now were broke. and all his little eggs are now in one basket. its sink or swim here.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That is patently false.

1.2 Trillion of this year's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit was already in place by January 7th, before Obama was inaugurated.

So it has only increased another 100 Billion under Obama. So far.

No, that is not correct. In March he signed off on the $410 billion omnibus bill.

In February he signed a budget with a $1.75 trillion deficit.