Obama's cap & trade policy--est. $2000 more per year per household in electric costs!

[Iriemon]

in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!

Most of the outscourcing in this country occurred in the 1990's while Bill Clinton was in office. Business tends to do that when TAXES are high. They go elsewhere to lower their costs to be competitive in the global marketplace.

Source of evidence for this claim?

 

[Iriemon]

Depends who you ask. Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08. Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.

Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?

Gunny was concerned about the little people. As am I.

False statement.

Looks like a lot of spin on your end. Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of hopeful ideology.

Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama. Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.

Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Thoses weren't earmarks.

It was rushed through by Barack Obama so-fast that our congress didn't even read it. It was supposed to be for immediate economic stimulus--when most of these infracstructure projects were not even shovel ready. Most won't be ready for 5 to 7 years! They had plenty of time to read this bill. It was shoved through by Obama for a reason. He did not want us, the American tax-payer to know what was in his bill.

We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.

Then they rushed through the Ominus bill another 450 BILLION dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks cramed in there by both democrats & republicans.

So much for Obama's promise of "transparency" in government!

How does that show lack of tansparency?

Recession: When your neighbor loses their job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.

Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years. We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.

I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?

 

[driveby]

Looks like a lot of spin on your end. Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of hopeful ideology.

Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama. Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.

Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Thoses weren't earmarks.

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

 

[Iriemon]

Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Thoses weren't earmarks.

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

 

[Xenophon]

Cap and trade is a disaster, it will drive the teetering economy into depression.

Only a fool would even sugest doing it.

The way to get off oil and coal is to build safe nuke plants and set up solar and wind BEFORE you take out the coal and oil plants, not after.

BTW, the 'rich' is not an inexhaustable moneypit, they have a number of ways to protect what is theirs, and are usually very good at it.

 

[Meister]

Thoses weren't earmarks.

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

You have to be joking???? You mean you can't do your own thinking on that? This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think. People like you, we won't stand a chance

 

[jeffrockit]

Thoses weren't earmarks.

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

Show me where any of that is stimulus! That was the name of the bill right?

 

[Meister]

Looks like a lot of spin on your end. Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of hopeful ideology.

Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama. Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.

Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Thoses weren't earmarks.



We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.

Then they rushed through the Ominus bill another 450 BILLION dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks cramed in there by both democrats & republicans.

So much for Obama's promise of "transparency" in government!

How does that show lack of tansparency?

Recession: When your neighbor loses their job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.

Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years. We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.

I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?

That would be the worst recession in 30 years

 

[Iriemon]

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

You have to be joking???? You mean you can't do your own thinking on that? This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think. People like you, we won't stand a chance

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

 

[Iriemon]

Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Thoses weren't earmarks.

We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.

How does that show lack of tansparency?

Recession: When your neighbor loses their job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.

Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years. We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.

I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?

That would be the worst recession in 30 years

After looking at the BEA data; I'll retract my statement for now.

Looking at annualized data, the worst year since WWII was 1981, a 1.9% real decline. The Economy was down -.1% in 3dQ08 and -1.6% 4thQ08, so we are pretty close to that. However, looking at worst quarters the economy decreased -2.8% in 82; -3.1% in 75/75, and -3.8% in '58. So we have a little ways to go to hit those benchmarks.

However

 

[Meister]

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

You have to be joking???? You mean you can't do your own thinking on that? This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think. People like you, we won't stand a chance

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

 

[Iriemon]

You have to be joking???? You mean you can't do your own thinking on that? This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think. People like you, we won't stand a chance

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

 

[Meister]

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark" There is no "earmark column" in any bill

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

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.

Criticism of Earmarks
This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.

Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.

However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.

 

[Iriemon]

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

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.

Criticism of Earmarks
This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.

Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.

However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.

Thanks. I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is. There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill. There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.

There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill. I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying. Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.

 

[Meister]

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

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.

Criticism of Earmarks
This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.

Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.

However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.

Thanks. I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is. There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill. There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.

There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill. I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying. Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.

No earmarks in the stimulus bill? You have been fooled bigtime. There were articles about the earmarks in the stimulus bill. You just chose not to read them. I'm not going to change your mind...but you have been misinformed.. So argue all you want...but Obama has said a lot of things that aren't true. But, your one of those Barry supporters that would follow him over a cliff if he asked you to.
By the way, I'm not confused at all on this matter. But, my friend, you are confused on what constitutes an earmark.

 

[Iriemon]

This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

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.

Criticism of Earmarks
This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.

Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.

However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.

Thanks. I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is. There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill. There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.

There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill. I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying. Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.

No earmarks in the stimulus bill? You have been fooled bigtime. There were articles about the earmarks in the stimulus bill. You just chose not to read them. I'm not going to change your mind...but you have been misinformed.. So argue all you want...but Obama has said a lot of things that aren't true. But, your one of those Barry supporters that would follow him over a cliff if he asked you to.
By the way, I'm not confused at all on this matter. But, my friend, you are confused on what constitutes an earmark.

Great. Cite one reliable source there were earmarks in the stimulus bill and show everyone I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Walter! It is you! "Welcome to Walmart. Get yer shit and get out!" LMAO! You're my fav. : )

You are denying what exactly? Or just ignoring the fact your to FUCKING STUPID to know how reality works?

Nah, just having a little fun with your style. Every watch Jeff Dunham?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MpGOPqROg&feature=fvsr[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IAGJK-hR6o&feature=fvsr[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w88MLvC8fE&feature=fvsr[/ame]

If you really want a response to your posts, write them without the infantile name calling. Then I'll be happy to discuss.

In other words you will gladly ignore reality cause you are too DAMN STUPID to have an answer. Thanks though for playing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is such a Horrible thing!!! Obama wants to find other means of supplying energy!!! Besides, coal plants only produce 73% of the CO2 emmited in the atmosphere!!! Oh yea, building nuclear and hydroelectric power plants will only create millions of jobs nationwide!!! Oh yea, I live in the south and everything here is run by nuclear or hydro electric power plants---Oh yea, our electric bills are lower than anyones in the country!!!!

By the way, because of this....a nuclear power plant 40 miles from my home is set to come back online within the next two years.... only bringing about 5000 jobs to the area!!! Construction on it was halted a few years back because of lack of funding!!!! Terrible, terrible thing Obama!!!!

Another one that pays NO ATTENTION. Obama is AGAINST Nuclear Power. He does not want it to replace Coal Plants. But hey live in that denial phase all you want.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My ass. Fuck the future right? Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away! The pass the buck generation. And its leaders Ron George and George. Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.

You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.

Depends who you ask. Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08. Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.



Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?

Cutting taxes is a good start. Why tax millionaires, they spend money in the economy also, and get taxed already.

Gunny was concerned about the little people. As am I.

Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?

False statement.

Water is all done, we HAVE no where but the Ocean to get more water power. Wind won't work because the Democrats don't want ANY near them. Try Kennedy and Feinstein. Solar won't work except at the house level because, again NO ONE wants any of that near them. Ohh and OBAMA is OPPOSED, as are the Congressional Democrats, to NUCLEAR Power.

 

[FactFinder]

The government in partnership with their financial cronies gave us the current recession. Apparently, they are trying to finish off the job with this cap & trade.

They are either totally incompetent imbeciles or they are all on the dole of the Skull & Bones Society.

They are basing massive, harmful legislation on "Unsettled Science". We are currently in a period of global cooling and the verdict is still out on whether man produced CO2 has any negligble effect on the environment. There is mounting evidence that wind shifts and undersea volcanoes are causing Arctic and West Antarctic melting. If this wasn't political, one would think they would at least want the underlying premise to have validity.