The Photo Op Ear Marks Are Less Than 1/2% Of Federal Spending!

[mascale]

Analysts are now starting to notice that one factor helping the Tea Party in the recent elections is the clustering of the GOP electorate into an ideological base. On its face, that would seem to leave the in-coming new House members in a power position. Fortunately for everyone else, now attention turns to face 2012.

Murkowski victory a stinging rebuke to Palin and extreme partisans - CNN.com

Only 18% of Alaska voters turned out in their primary, and Murkowski only lost by 2000 votes. So Palin and the Tea Party didn't win.

The Enemy of the People, in fact, is not the Ear Marks spending of $16.0 bil. per year, in the $3.5 tril. federal budget. Ear Marks are a non-issue, created by a political party, now facing the wrong way. In fact, the Republicans are still planning to stick with, "No!" as their only mantra, starting out in the new year.

That is likely to mean a payroll tax hike for lower and middle incomes, starting immediately, in January.

Senate Major Leader, Harry Reid, is actually not a Republican, and is not a lunatic, by comparison. The Nevada Senate race was won by "not likely" voters. Those people tend to turn out in the Presidential-level elections, and including when a non-white is at the top of the ticket.

The Tea Party Plans Mainly And Only to raise all taxes, when they start in January, having said, "No!" Among their first acts will be repeal of the Stimulus, Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit. The focus instead will be on taking away the $16.0 bil. in local area spending, from all the Republican districts!

And after taking everything away, they intend a 2012 campaign!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Actually, far more of an international sensation is now being caused by a fa. . . .Scottish woman, now singing in advanced Middle Age!)

 

[Avatar4321]

So we should allow corruption of the process because it only makes up a small part of the spending of money we don't have?

Why not see this as a good first step instead?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"Senate Major Leader, Harry Reid, is actually not a Republican"......Do what?!

 

[SwingVoter]

"The Enemy of the People, in fact, is not the Ear Marks spending of $16.0 bil. per year, in the $3.5 tril. federal budget"

John McCain admitted he wasn't very good at math. He'd pound his fist about these tiny earmarks, but then voted in the Senate to restore $400 billion of funding for socialized medicine.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, half a percent is better than the increases we've been getting. I'm for it.

 

[WillowTree]

Analysts are now starting to notice that one factor helping the Tea Party in the recent elections is the clustering of the GOP electorate into an ideological base. On its face, that would seem to leave the in-coming new House members in a power position. Fortunately for everyone else, now attention turns to face 2012.

Murkowski victory a stinging rebuke to Palin and extreme partisans - CNN.com

Only 18% of Alaska voters turned out in their primary, and Murkowski only lost by 2000 votes. So Palin and the Tea Party didn't win.

The Enemy of the People, in fact, is not the Ear Marks spending of $16.0 bil. per year, in the $3.5 tril. federal budget. Ear Marks are a non-issue, created by a political party, now facing the wrong way. In fact, the Republicans are still planning to stick with, "No!" as their only mantra, starting out in the new year.

That is likely to mean a payroll tax hike for lower and middle incomes, starting immediately, in January.

Senate Major Leader, Harry Reid, is actually not a Republican, and is not a lunatic, by comparison. The Nevada Senate race was won by "not likely" voters. Those people tend to turn out in the Presidential-level elections, and including when a non-white is at the top of the ticket.

The Tea Party Plans Mainly And Only to raise all taxes, when they start in January, having said, "No!" Among their first acts will be repeal of the Stimulus, Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit. The focus instead will be on taking away the $16.0 bil. in local area spending, from all the Republican districts!

And after taking everything away, they intend a 2012 campaign!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Actually, far more of an international sensation is now being caused by a fa. . . .Scottish woman, now singing in advanced Middle Age!)

If they are as minute as you claim then I'm sure you'll agree that everyone can agree they won't be missed. So let's do away with them. It's a start in the right direction.

 

[SwingVoter]

Do you have to fail math to be a Republican?

Cut $16 billion from a $1.5 trillion deficit, and you've still got a $1.5 trillion deficit. We need to cut either Defense, Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, or all 4 to really make an impact. But the GOP refuses to cut these huge government programs in spite of all the "limited government" rhetoric they don't believe themselves.

 

[SwingVoter]

It's a start in the right direction.

no it's not, these are gimmicky cuts that let politicians brag about making "tough choices", meanwhile they don't do a thing to cut the large programs, and all the borrow-and-spend Socialist Republicans won't touch any of the big spending items

Now, Chris Christie has a pair, I respect him. But the rest of his party is a bunch of useless pussies who are terrified of teachers unions and AARP lobbyists.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Being a swing voter must be tough these days. What's the decision process like when you have Bush spending trillions and O spending three trillion in his first two years?

 

[SwingVoter]

What's the decision process like when you have Bush spending trillions and O spending three trillion in his first two years?

Divided government. Dems in the White House + GOP in Congress = budget discipline through lots of fighting and gridlock. Remember the peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses last time we had this setup?

I'm probably voting for O again, even though he's mediocre at best. Clinton was too, but a lot of good things happened when he was Pres, because he couldn't pass a spending bill to save his life after '94. Then the minute Bush came in it was off to the races with new legislation. If Romney/Pawlenty/Palin/whoever gets in there, they'll hand out more money to the AARP lobby for socialist programs than Obama could ever hope to.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Being a swing voter must be tough these days. What's the decision process like when you have Bush spending trillions and O spending three trillion in his first two years?

You vote third party. That's what I usually do, unless I really think the R or D is worthwhile.

 

[WillowTree]

It's a start in the right direction.

no it's not, these are gimmicky cuts that let politicians brag about making "tough choices", meanwhile they don't do a thing to cut the large programs, and all the borrow-and-spend Socialist Republicans won't touch any of the big spending items

Now, Chris Christie has a pair, I respect him. But the rest of his party is a bunch of useless pussies who are terrified of teachers unions and AARP lobbyists.

Shows what you know. It's all these "little earmarks" that get the sleazy demoRats to vote for the BIG BILLS. The COSTLY BILLS. So cut out the earmarks and some of the rest will follow.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's the decision process like when you have Bush spending trillions and O spending three trillion in his first two years?

Divided government. Dems in the White House + GOP in Congress = budget discipline through lots of fighting and gridlock. Remember the peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses last time we had this setup?

I'm probably voting for O again, even though he's mediocre at best. Clinton was too, but a lot of good things happened when he was Pres, because he couldn't pass a spending bill to save his life after '94. Then the minute Bush came in it was off to the races with new legislation. If Romney/Pawlenty/Palin/whoever gets in there, they'll hand out more money to the AARP lobby for socialist programs than Obama could ever hope to.

No. I don't remember the Peace, Prosperity, and budget surpluses. Because quite frankly they weren't real.

Al Qaeda was waging war against us. Simply because we ignored it didn't mean it wasnt going on.

The Dot Com boom had little to do with politics and everything to do with emerging tech. It also burst in that time period. We also saw companies like Enron scamming people out of money through deception, though it wasn't caught till years later. Prosperity was an illusion.

And the budget surplus never existed. Playing games with numbers doesn't a surplus create. And both parties were already spending that "projected" surplus.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Seriously though guys - the OP has a point.
He/She is right about one thing...the ONLY reason this is even out there is because it provides a nice shiny object for people to look at - meanwhile not looking at the real problem: $13 trillion in debt...the dollar which is literally teetering just this side of the abyss, foreign governments who have lost all faith in the American government managing it's economy...and a slight problem that no one likes to talk about - we are borrowing $3,000,000,000 a day just to stay afloat.

Fine..loose the earmarks..but whether they go or not is an absolute minuscule of importance compared to the importance of what I stated above.

 

[American Horse]

Earmarks are used as leverage to get votes for legislation that would otherwise fail to pass. Earmarks boot up federal spending. Earmarks are particularly a Republican sin, because spending bills are overseen locally by the federal bureacracy, which is a creature of the party-of-government.

This means that without "earmarks" the Republicans will not see much money spent in their districts that is not controlled by Democrats. Without earmarks, sending from federal coffers will end up being guided much more into Democrat distracts (D leaning) than Republican ones.

This is why certain Republicans do not tell the truth about "earmarks," saying they have no effect on the amount of government spending. If they told the truth they would expose how weak and how dependent they are relative to the party-of-government.

That is how pernicious earmarks really are. Their elimination is the only route to reducing spending, without which no amount of tax increases will ever be enough to pay for all the new and increased spending resulting in large part from earmarks. Earmarks are a spending virus in the veins of Republicans.

 

[Revere]

Keep the earmarks then. Put the budget back to where it was in 2008 before Obama grew it 24%.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you have to fail math to be a Republican?

Cut $16 billion from a $1.5 trillion deficit, and you've still got a $1.5 trillion deficit. We need to cut either Defense, Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, or all 4 to really make an impact. But the GOP refuses to cut these huge government programs in spite of all the "limited government" rhetoric they don't believe themselves.

Social Security does not impact the deficit.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you have to fail math to be a Republican?

Cut $16 billion from a $1.5 trillion deficit, and you've still got a $1.5 trillion deficit. We need to cut either Defense, Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, or all 4 to really make an impact. But the GOP refuses to cut these huge government programs in spite of all the "limited government" rhetoric they don't believe themselves.

Social Security does not impact the deficit.

...are you fucking MAD?????

And pray tell, WHERRRRRE does the money come for Social Security? Hmmm? Do magic budget fairies make it while we sleep in some magical hour in the middle of the night? P-BO just dip into some of his 'stash' somewhere? The hell is wrong with you?!? I think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say Carbineer... and there's a long list to leap over for that.

Social Security, nor any other part of the government is self-sustaining. Hell even the government itself is not self sustaining! Take it's taxes away and it's broke. It has no customers. It makes no product. It makes no money unto itself.

The deficit is getting worse because of all the uncovered payouts we have to make as retirees grow, and the working populace shrinks. And with illegals doing jobs Americans can't have shrinking the tax paying labor pool (yeah, some company violating immigration law is paying their rightful share taxes ) depleting the money pool for SS taxes even more... This is going to get even worse.

wow... just fucking stupid.