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

[Meister]

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......

YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.

for an alternative view...

earmarks allow the federal government to fund things without them being part of an elaborate government program, or pork-barrel spending. republicans have gotten real handy with earmark spending for political reasons, yes, but also as a practical way to get things done in their districts without 'making a huge project out of it'.

no coincidence obama came riding in on the cut the earmarks horse, aiming for the balls of the republican promise machine.

i say its more a matter of how theyre used and for what. the same applies to the pork-barrel, which is not what you want to necessarily show preferrence toward. you seen that pie chart with the relative value of the earmark spending above. take it to heart.

Your a good party man for your messiah antagon. Good sheep, that's what you are. Yes it's a small piece of the pie....but the pie IS 1.1 trillion dollars, and the little piece of the pie IS 3.9 billion. Our economy sucks, and unemployment sucks....time to reel in the spending...I don't care if it's republicans, or democrats the politicians need to stop it. Obama campaigned on no earmarks, and he doesn't back up his words with actions.

 

[The T]

You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
What ever happened to the "Hope and Change" jingle?


Projects, known as earmarks, are inserted into annual budget bills at the request of members. Stephen Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said his organization identified 5,224 earmarks in the bill worth about $3.9 billion.
Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com

3.9 billion is not chump change, BFGRN

Obama Vows To Restore ‘Fiscal Discipline’

 

[antagon]

YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.

for an alternative view...

earmarks allow the federal government to fund things without them being part of an elaborate government program, or pork-barrel spending. republicans have gotten real handy with earmark spending for political reasons, yes, but also as a practical way to get things done in their districts without 'making a huge project out of it'.

no coincidence obama came riding in on the cut the earmarks horse, aiming for the balls of the republican promise machine.

i say its more a matter of how theyre used and for what. the same applies to the pork-barrel, which is not what you want to necessarily show preferrence toward. you seen that pie chart with the relative value of the earmark spending above. take it to heart.

Your a good party man for your messiah antagon. Good sheep, that's what you are. Yes it's a small piece of the pie....but the pie IS 1.1 trillion dollars, and the little piece of the pie IS 3.9 billion. Our economy sucks, and unemployment sucks....time to reel in the spending...I don't care if it's republicans, or democrats the politicians need to stop it. Obama campaigned on no earmarks, and he doesn't back up his words with actions.

ya got your mind made up who i am and all. its funny.

but i was trying to point out that the alternative to earmarks is the substantially more expensive pork-barrel measures.

mccain's the no earmarks man, but theyre less common for senators, anyhow. obama campained on reviewing and slashing earmarks; i made the point it was no coincidence, coming from a democrat, since their MO is to pork-barrel anyhow.

either way, earmarks down 60%, what do you want?

so you know, you real in the spending when the economy is good. pass it on to your conservative hack club at your next meeting.

 

[Jay Canuck]

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.

just pointing out where and who's spending the lions share is - and it's not my spending. Do you maybe think that not spending money at all would have helped the economy after it was left in a shambles by the Bush administration?

 

[Meister]

for an alternative view...

earmarks allow the federal government to fund things without them being part of an elaborate government program, or pork-barrel spending. republicans have gotten real handy with earmark spending for political reasons, yes, but also as a practical way to get things done in their districts without 'making a huge project out of it'.

no coincidence obama came riding in on the cut the earmarks horse, aiming for the balls of the republican promise machine.

i say its more a matter of how theyre used and for what. the same applies to the pork-barrel, which is not what you want to necessarily show preferrence toward. you seen that pie chart with the relative value of the earmark spending above. take it to heart.

Your a good party man for your messiah antagon. Good sheep, that's what you are. Yes it's a small piece of the pie....but the pie IS 1.1 trillion dollars, and the little piece of the pie IS 3.9 billion. Our economy sucks, and unemployment sucks....time to reel in the spending...I don't care if it's republicans, or democrats the politicians need to stop it. Obama campaigned on no earmarks, and he doesn't back up his words with actions.

ya got your mind made up who i am and all. its funny.

but i was trying to point out that the alternative to earmarks is the substantially more expensive pork-barrel measures.

mccain's the no earmarks man, but theyre less common for senators, anyhow. obama campained on reviewing and slashing earmarks; i made the point it was no coincidence, coming from a democrat, since their MO is to pork-barrel anyhow.

either way, earmarks down 60%, what do you want?

so you know, you real in the spending when the economy is good. pass it on to your conservative hack club at your next meeting.

I am a conservative, and proud of it, you are a bleeding hear liberal. All your talking points come back to your liberal ways. antagon. Why don't you try and look at where the money is being spent with the earmarks. We need to raise the debt ceiling by 1.2 trillion dollars, and you don't get it. The earmarks are no more than buying a vote in a time where we need to cut back on spending. Just like the 1.1 trillion is too big of a budget.....it's just another day at Disneyland for the politicians. Your too liberal to get past your ideology. Go back to the flock of sheep antagon, your in good company there.

 

[uscitizen]

As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

The current deficit is actually 1.3 Trillion, and shrinking. The moneys returned by the banks have made that the case.

Which means that, up to this point, only 100 billion dollars has been added to the deificit under the Obama administration.

More than that was spent on the Stimulus package. Which means that that 100 billion dollars was spent as stimulus.

Which makes your "This congress has been spending money like it's growing on trees" statement patently false.

But hey, what do you peoplel care about those pesky "facts". You're all on a "Faith Based" system of reality.

 

[The T]

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.

just pointing out where and who's spending the lions share is - and it's not my spending. Do you maybe think that not spending money at all would have helped the economy after it was left in a shambles by the Bush administration?

And NOT the all-Encompassing Conservative contigent here was too thrilled with Bush either and his lack of Veto Pen...

You assume too much there Knuckster...

 

[Meister]

As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

 

[antagon]

As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

you and your sheep obsession.

we do agree on kerry and gore.

 

[Vast LWC]

YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.

Yes, this is true.

The main problem with people who generally call themselves "Conservatives" though, and this is certainly not true of all Conservatives, is that they only want to cut spending on things that they personally don't like.

For instance, the military makes up about 25% of the budget. We spend more on our military expenditures than the rest of the world combined. Thus it is obvious that we can certainly cut a hell of a lot of spending in this area.

But most "Conservatives", and again there are some exceptions, won't hear of it.

They think we can cut the needed 2 Trillion dollars worth of yearly spending simply by cutting programs that make up less than 1% of our federal budget, like welfare, and education.

Well, that's not going to happen.

On the other hand, if we cut military spending in half, and pulled our troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan, we would balance the budget.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

Yet, Al Gore was part of the administration that had balanced the budget in the previous 8 years under Clinton, and didn't plan to change that record.

Shouldn't that have been a reason for "conservatives" to vote for him?

 

[Jay Canuck]

"And NOT the all-Encompassing Conservative contigent here was too thrilled with Bush either and his lack of Veto Pen...

You assume too much there Knuckster..."


of course I would appreciate you pointing out in which post I contended all conservatives were thrilled with Bush and his actions?

 

[antagon]

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

Yet, Al Gore was part of the administration that had balanced the budget in the previous 8 years under Clinton, and didn't plan to change that record.

Shouldn't that have been a reason for "conservatives" to vote for him?

al gore was horrible. the DNC should have run a real primary that year. as much as bush stunk it up, i shudder to think of gore's handling of 9/11.

 

[Meister]

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

Yet, Al Gore was part of the administration that had balanced the budget in the previous 8 years under Clinton, and didn't plan to change that record.

Shouldn't that have been a reason for "conservatives" to vote for him?

Your joking, right?
Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball. Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center. Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps. I wouldn't have voted for Gore.

 

[Vast LWC]

al gore was horrible. the DNC should have run a real primary that year. as much as bush stunk it up, i shudder to think of gore's handling of 9/11.

Oh yeah, I shudder too...

He probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and might have actually thought about things in advance enough to have captured Bin Laden right away.

Instead we had a "Faith Based" reaction to 9/11 that got hundreds of thousands of people killed that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yeah, I'm sooo sure Al Gore's reaction would have been worse than that.

Al Gore is a thinking man. George Bush is a "Shoot from the hip" man.

Al Gore's main problem is that he had a slight lisp.

 

[Vast LWC]

Your joking, right?
Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball. Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center. Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps. I wouldn't have voted for Gore.

Yes, instead you voted for George W Bush, perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States.

Seriously, do you think that makes you a good judge of character as far as presidential candidates go?

I didn't happen to think Al Gore was the strongest candidate in the world myself, but he was a hell of a lot better than the alcoholic-in-chief that was running against him.

And if "Gore was nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps.", what the hell was Bush???

At least Gore got through college without relying on daddy to bail out his C- ass.

 

[The T]

It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen. We have a two party system in place right now. If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him. But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation. What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.

Yet, Al Gore was part of the administration that had balanced the budget in the previous 8 years under Clinton, and didn't plan to change that record.

Shouldn't that have been a reason for "conservatives" to vote for him?

Your joking, right?
Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball. Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center. Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps. I wouldn't have voted for Gore.

As most know? OwlGore was being groomed by his daddy (Whom was at the forefront of the opposition to Civil Rights movement of the 1960's), to be POTUS one day in the FUTURE...

He lost his chance, and therefore *WE* are stuck with the risiduals...(Scum/Froth, if you will) of his failed attempt at the presidency. Yes, yes we know he was in this enviro-whacko movement before his attempt (Book: Earth in the Balance)...Which kinda sealed his fate to wit he carries on to this day. He took on the cause of wayward Communists (Since the Berlin Wall fell), called Militant Enviromentalism...

Gore was and *IS* a fuckin' JOKE.

*I* wouldn't have voted for his whacko ass either.

 

[Meister]

Your joking, right?
Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball. Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center. Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps. I wouldn't have voted for Gore.

Yes, instead you voted for George W Bush, perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States.
Seriously, do you think that makes you a good judge of character as far as presidential candidates go?

I didn't happen to think Al Gore was the strongest candidate in the world myself, but he was a hell of a lot better than the alcoholic-in-chief that was running against him.

And if "Gore was nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps.", what the hell was Bush???

At least Gore got through college without relying on daddy to bail out his C- ass.

C-.....and he still did better than Kerry in school.
Look my pick wouldn't have been Bush, but we have to vote for someone. Al Gore would have screwed up 9-11 as Clinton did after the 93' Trade Center bombing....like he did with all the terrorists attacks we had under the Clinton administration. Clinton downsized our military, and fragmented our intell. Yeah Gore would have been the prize. Give me a break. At least Bush had balls, unlike the 2 candidates that ran against him. Don't throw Iraq on me, because I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on that one, and don't pull that Bush spent too much....yeah he did, and I bitched about that, too.But, Obama spending is way over the top, and he isn't going to slow down with the cap and tax crap that is going to be hitting the fan next year.
I know you won't complain about that at all, because it's OooooooooooooBaaaaaaama.

 

[Vast LWC]

As most know? OwlGore was being groomed by his daddy (Whom was at the forefront of the opposition to Civil Rights movement of the 1960's), to be POTUS one day in the FUTURE...

He lost his chance, and therefore *WE* are stuck with the risiduals...(Scum/Froth, if you will) of his failed attempt at the presidency. Yes, yes we know he was in this enviro-whacko movement before his attempt (Book: Earth in the Balance)...Which kinda sealed his fate to wit he carries on to this day. He took on the cause of wayward Communists (Since the Berlin Wall fell), called Militant Enviromentalism...

Gore was and *IS* a fuckin' JOKE.

*I* wouldn't have voted for his whacko ass either.

OK, seriously, you and your right-wing buddies have been wrong about SOOOOOO many things in the past 8 years, especially who you chose for presidential candidates.

There is undeniable proof that Global Warming is in fact happening right now, as we speak. Whether the causes are as Al Gore described them, or not, he has essentially been CORRECT about the fact that Global Warming is occurring for the past 30 years, sincne he started talking about it in the 80's.

In addition, Al was one of the main proponents of government funding of the internet, something you and your right-wing buddies have endlessly railed on him for, but in the end he was CORRECT to help fund the internet. Or are you denying that too?

In fact, it seems that Al Gore is CORRECT on most issues. In fact, I can't think of something he has been proven wrong about.

Now, as for his likeability, that was a major factor in his losing race, but comparing him unfavorably to George W Bush, our country's biggest mistake, is a fucking joke.