Like O'Reilly, Hannity mis-represented Obama on earmarks

I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

If it's a good program, it can be voted on and passed on it's own merit and need not be inserted into another bill as an earmark.

So on top of the other spending for the stimulus package...that would be the 99% of it which is NOT considered an earmark, you really expected congress to pass 9,000 individual bills, too?



From Wikipedia:

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

Yeah, that's right.

So?
 
I don't like Hannity or Oreilly, but I get tired of people making excuses for Obama. He said he would eliminate pork and he has not. Deal with it. Otherwise it sounds like Clinton saying he was against the war in Iraq when everyone knows damn well he supported it.
 
He did say he was going to get rid of earmarks, "We are going to change the way Washington does business" It was going to be the kebosh on lobbyists too and you see what he did about that? He hired them of course.. right after he signed the "imperfect" bill yesterday he told his congresscritters, he was go to do battle with them and his ear marks.. you will pardon the fuck outta us mr.. dummie but we don't believe a word you say about nuttin you say,,he was going to create 2.5 million jobs too,, that soon was modified to create or "save" I guess he thinks he the brightest pencil in the drawer and we "the people" don't see his naked azz standing there! :lol::lol::lol:

He is doing an excellent job. He is changing the way washington does business. Did you go to the website where you can see all the pork? That's new.

And the days of corporations stealing the money they were awarded, is over. And no more NO BID contracts.

You are not the brightest person in the world, so I can see why you are not happy with how things are going. You and Rush should get married.


Good job...now go sit down and drink the Kool-Aid. If you call getting us so deep in debt that your grandchildren will still be buried in debt...I guess you could say Obama is doing an excellent job. As far as changing the way Washington is doing business....still hiring lobbyists, and pretty much taken the Clintons staff and hired them back... how is that changing Washington? Seally...your nothing but a leftwing hack that lacks brains.
You and Keith Olbermann should be butt buddies.
 
There has been a lot of bickering back and forth about earmarks. Right down to the definition of what an earmark is. The fact is right now our economy is in the tank, and Obama should have had the seasoning to line out the earmarks.....along with the increase of 8% spending. There is a time to increase spending, and have some good earmarks passed, but this is not the time to have either. We need to focus on the economy getting fixed.....before anything else.
I believe Obama is not running this country, and it's in the hands of Pelosi and the democratic congress. Please one of you democrats tell me where I'm wrong.
 
I believe that I HEARD Obama say that he was going to end ALL earmarks.

At the time I thought that statements didn't make much sense.

Earmarks are a SOP for funding specific projects.

Why on earth would you want to end that?

PORK is probably always an earmark, but not every earmark is pork.

duh!

If it's a good program, it can be voted on and passed on it's own merit and need not be inserted into another bill as an earmark.

So on top of the other spending for the stimulus package...that would be the 99% of it which is NOT considered an earmark, you really expected congress to pass 9,000 individual bills, too?



From Wikipedia:

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

Yeah, that's right.

So?

I expect them to treat these "good" earmarks like amendments.

They voted on amendments yesterday U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote Summary - 111th Congress, 1st Session
 
Last edited:
I did hear him yesterday.

He was, I think, correcting himself.

Certainly some projects that are earmarked are sensible spending.

What happened, I think, is what often happens to our language.

Something specific is bad, and what happens is that the class of that thing becomes bad, rather than the specific thing being bad.

Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is often insinuated into bills as earmarks.

There are, we're told 9,000 earmarked spending items in this latest bill.

Are all 9,000 of them pork?

How about the 5,000 of them that the REPUBLCIANS WANTED in that bill?

Were they all pork too, or cqan some of us find the intelligence to understand that earmarking is a legislative technique for how money gets allocated in spending bills?




You keep saying that,, but why didn't the Democwats vote to kill the bill and eliminate the republican earmarks doyathink? Better yet why didn't the liar veto it?

No first of all I only siad it once, but let's address your question anyway, shall we?

Because, Willow, the need to get money back into the economy is more important than the partisan bickering you think is such a good thing, that's why..

And it is very likely that they did so because many of the Republican earmarks were no more pork than thousands of other earmarks.

ROFLMNAO... "The Need to get money back into the economy"...

Whatta load. The Market has plenty of money... what it doesn't have is CONFIDENCE that the money will NOT be consumed by government interference...

Here's an idea... BUILD CONFIDENCE that your intention is to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE; meaning that your policy will PROMOTE COMMERCE AND NOT PUNISH IT.
 
After all of his fuck ups and such a short period, i'd have given Barry a second chance had he vetoed that bill and would have given him mad respect. He signed it though, silly me for thinking he wouldn't. Now i say without conviction, fuck that lying cocksucker.......

P.S. Media Matters is 10 times more biased than O'Reilly, moron ........
 
Last edited:
I don't like Hannity or Oreilly, but I get tired of people making excuses for Obama. He said he would eliminate pork and he has not. Deal with it. Otherwise it sounds like Clinton saying he was against the war in Iraq when everyone knows damn well he supported it.



actually it is more akin to Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman"
 
There has been a lot of bickering back and forth about earmarks. Right down to the definition of what an earmark is. The fact is right now our economy is in the tank, and Obama should have had the seasoning to line out the earmarks.....along with the increase of 8% spending. There is a time to increase spending, and have some good earmarks passed, but this is not the time to have either. We need to focus on the economy getting fixed.....before anything else.
I believe Obama is not running this country, and it's in the hands of Pelosi and the democratic congress. Please one of you democrats tell me where I'm wrong.



That certainly would have helped us believe that he meant "change we can believe in" but no,, not him, no way!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top