GOP gets it, Dems don't.

[The Rabbi]

And you somehow trust McConnell. I know, I know.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to deliver even their promised modest reform?

wtf kind of point are you trying to make?> You're pre-supposing that I actually BELIEVED they WANTED to deliver.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were teh Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi does not trust himself. He knows better.

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to achieve even modest reform as they promised?

Rabbi is doing a wonderful job of proving he's both a liar and a fool. This is a news item from the UA Today; hard to find for their are dozens of 'hit' pieces (Newsmax) if one googles "Pelosi earmarks". He lies about what earmarks are and lies about the speaker. Rabbi has no integrity and isn't smart enough to convince any but the echo chamber of his many partisan and hateful allegations.

Democrats: Identify pork sponsors
Pelosi plans to target anonymous ‘earmarks'
By Peter Eisler and Kathy Kiely
USA TODAY , NOV. 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — Democrats aim to open the next Congress in January with a new rule that identifies lawmakers who use legislative “earmarks” to help special interests — a change Republicans promised but didn't implement.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said her first agenda item after being elected House speaker will be a vote to require sponsors of earmarks to be identified. Currently, lawmakers can remain anonymous in sponsoring an earmark, which is language in a bill that directs funds or tax benefits to a business, project or institution.

“There has to be transparency,” the California congresswoman told USA TODAY last week. “I'd just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn't realistic.”

Pelosi said some earmarks “are worthy,” and they can be a legitimate way for Congress to force fiscal priorities on the White House.

House Republican leaders adopted a disclosure rule in September, but no earmark sponsors have been identified under the rule because it effectively exempted bills that dictate spending for 2007.

Congress begins a lame-duck session today to consider unfinished 2007 appropriations bills. Those bills could give members another chance to insert anonymous earmarks. Regardless, the Republican rule expires at year's end, so Democrats would have to pass their own disclosure requirement.

Earmarking has drawn complaints from groups such as the National Taxpayers Union that say anonymity encourages wasteful spending. Conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have said Republicans' failure to bring accountability to the process helped fuel the party's losses last week.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, cited earmark disclosure as one of several “needed reforms” that Republicans should back in the new Congress. “We hope that the party in which most of us have invested our trust will learn the right lessons” from the elections, he said.

Last month, a USA TODAY investigation found that many special interests got earmarks after hiring lobbyists who were relatives of lawmakers or staffers affiliated with the House and Senate appropriations committees.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks in appropriations bills has tripled in the past decade to about 16,000. One famous example was an earmark that set aside millions for a “bridge to nowhere” — a span over a remote Alaskan waterway to a sparsely populated island.

“You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for,” Pelosi said. “Or if you do, you have to know whose it is.”

PS Of course Rabbi and the others - echo chamber all - won't read the news item posted above. He and they will continue to post lies for very good reason. That is all they have.

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were the Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

 

[The Rabbi]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

In the last budget, there were MORE Republican earmarks than Democrat earmarks. And during the Bush years when Republicans had full control, they set RECORDS for earmarks. HOW MANY lies will you swallow before you ******* explode?

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were the Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

 

[G.T.]

Deflection. Evasion.
If earmarks are so tiny, why were the Dems unable to deliver even their promised modest reform?

wtf kind of point are you trying to make?> You're pre-supposing that I actually BELIEVED they WANTED to deliver.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were teh Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

My answer said, "I never thought they intended to, to begin with," you ******* idiot. That's a direct answer, not a deflection. You deflected from the answer because you're a smarmy ass hole.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

 

[Immanuel]

The GOP scored a big one with the agreement by Mitch McConnell to end earmarks. Remember Pelosi and the Dums ran in 06 on doing this (actually just reining them in, meaning nothing but it sounded good). Initially McConnell opposed ending earmarks. But I guess the reality of what Americans want finally made the case with him. As he said:

An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those who are elected to represent them

The Dums better start worrying.
Senate GOP Leader McConnell Has Change of Heart on Earmarks | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

The ball will be in the Dims court and they'll either have to go along with it or look positively stupid.

How ironic. They've gone from large majorities in the House and Senate to backing themselves into this corner and others. What a bunch of dopes.

I have not yet gotten into this thread, but I suspect that McConnell has done the same thing that Pelosi and the Dems did in '06. Paid lip service to the idea of ending earmarks. Obama promised transparency... we got opaqueness. Obama promised no tax increases on families earning less than $250k and the first thing he did was raise taxes on cigarettes which affected many more families earning less than $250k than it did those earning more.

In other words, so far this is nothing but a promise. I'll believe it when they pass a budget with zero earmarks.

Edit: Damn, reading further into this thread, I see that my statements basically show that I agree with TDM on this, I am oh so close to deleting my post!

Immie

 

[Modbert]

If the Republicans do anything at all in the subject of earmarks, they'll most likely redefine what makes a "earmark" and continue to pass bills which has them by the thousands. Overall though, the subject of earmarks in general are nothing but a illusion that the GOP actually cares about cutting the budget. Make a thread when they're willing to make cuts that isn't simply getting rid of people's social security and medicare.

 

[G.T.]

If earmarks are so tiny then why did the Dems fail to make even modest reform at them?
I keep asking this question and get only deflection and evasion.
The truth is: while earmarks themselves represent a small amount of spending, they typically enable a much larger amount of spending as the earmark is the price of the representative's vote. Thus it is a corrupt system of legalized bribery.
The Dems didn't do anything about earmarks because they are corrupt (Rangel, Waters, et al) and cannot make even modest reform.
The GOP is on record as pushing for not just reform but elimination of the whole sorry thing. The GOP understood what the election meant. It meant people were tired of business as usual and earmarks were the largest symptom. They got it so much that even an earmark defender like McConnell turned around and will support ending them.
Thus the GOP will do what the Dums couldn't even pretend to promise. They get it, the Dums still don't.

In the last budget, there were MORE Republican earmarks than Democrat earmarks. And during the Bush years when Republicans had full control, they set RECORDS for earmarks. HOW MANY lies will you swallow before you ******* explode?

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were the Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

This also was not a deflection. He quite clearly told you: you're the ******* idiot who's believing anyone who says they'll "end earmarks," and what's more, you're believing the party who's been more heavily using them.

It's not a deflection, you just cannot address it like a gorwn assed man.

 

[Immanuel]

If it was so negligible why did Democrats run on it in '06? If it was so negligible why were they not able to do even the modest reform they promised?
Life sucks when you're wrong.

One thing about you Rabbi, you have no shame (or integrity). You have plenty of partisanship, so much it smells. ONE to TWO PERCENT of the Federal Budget, Rabbi. That is all that earmarks account for. It's chump change.

That's right, one to two percent. But, if congress can't trim the small spending off the budget, how in the HELL do you expect them to take care of the big shit? Seems to me that if congress can't eliminate ear marks, then they're not serious about cutting spending AT ALL!

That is about the way I see it... except that I don't think either party is serious about cutting spending.

Immie

 

[The Rabbi]

wtf kind of point are you trying to make?> You're pre-supposing that I actually BELIEVED they WANTED to deliver.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were teh Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

My answer said, "I never thought they intended to, to begin with," you ******* idiot. That's a direct answer, not a deflection. You deflected from the answer because you're a smarmy ass hole.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

OK, so you agree Dems are lying scumbags not to be trusted. This is a proven fact and even you admit this.
We will see whether the GOP will actually do away with them. So far they give every indication of doing so and having staked political reputations on it and anticipating 2012 it would be hard for them not to follow through without suffering at the polls.

 

[G.T.]

Deflection, evasion.
If earmarks are so insignificant why were teh Dems unable to make even the modest reforms they promised?

My answer said, "I never thought they intended to, to begin with," you ******* idiot. That's a direct answer, not a deflection. You deflected from the answer because you're a smarmy ass hole.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

OK, so you agree Dems are lying scumbags not to be trusted. This is a proven fact and even you admit this.
We will see whether the GOP will actually do away with them. So far they give every indication of doing so and having staked political reputations on it and anticipating 2012 it would be hard for them not to follow through without suffering at the polls.

Both sides are lying scumbags. R's are bigger dickheads about it. Case and point. Mitch McConnell. John Boehner.

 

[The Rabbi]

My answer said, "I never thought they intended to, to begin with," you ******* idiot. That's a direct answer, not a deflection. You deflected from the answer because you're a smarmy ass hole.

You, on the other hand, BELIEVE a lying scum politician named McConnell. Congratu-*******-lations.

OK, so you agree Dems are lying scumbags not to be trusted. This is a proven fact and even you admit this.
We will see whether the GOP will actually do away with them. So far they give every indication of doing so and having staked political reputations on it and anticipating 2012 it would be hard for them not to follow through without suffering at the polls.

Both sides are lying scumbags. R's are bigger dickheads about it. Case and point. Mitch McConnell. John Boehner.

The phrase is "case in point."
Anyway, we'll see. If the GOP fails to reform or do away with earmarks then they aren't serious and will suffer terribly in 2012.
But they have enough incentive to act.

 

[Trajan]

McConnell? Was he for earmarks before he was against them? Oh, and Rabbi, please explain in detail what is and what is not an earmark.
For example, what is the difference between soft and hard earmarks, earmarks and pork barrell spending and if, for example, the Congress passes and the president signs a bill (such as No Child Left Behind) and the funding is year to year, many times less than necessary? Is the latter called a challenged earmark?
Oh, and what of no bid contracts, explain that for us.

Why don't you explain why Pelosi and the Dums ran on ending earmarks and then utterly failed. In fact, everything they ran on in 06 they failed at. They failed because they never intended to change any of those things. It was all bullshit. Kind of like every post you make.
So now McConnell understands that he has to end earmarks and is on board with the idea. That's called "growth". Of course whatever he did, you would be carping about something. Because you...don't...get...it.

Of course I do, get it. Pelosi ran on healthcare and got it. She ran on Wall St. reform and got it. For those who believe (both of you) anything posted by Rabbi, consider:

Enacted
Main article: List of United States federal legislation#110th United States Congress
February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654

House in Salinas, California under foreclosure, following the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.
More information: Public Laws for the 110th Congress and Complete index of Public and Private Laws for 110th Congress at GPO

[edit] Proposed, but not enacted
in (alphabetical order)
America's Climate Security Act of 2007
Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
Employee Free Choice Act
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Executive Branch Reform Act
Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007
Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007
State Children's Health Insurance Program
[edit] Vetoed
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 976)
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (SCHIP, H.R. 3963)
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3043)
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5)
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 1943)
H.R. 1585: an earlier version of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
H.R. 1591: an earlier version of U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007

tis is exactly why we need, as the framers intended a part time legislature, let hem come to DC 6 months a year, the other 6 they can get a JOB. just because they enact means diddly squat. CFL's? Obamacare?...hello?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not really on point, but worth reading:
\
Millionaires to Obama: Tax us - Yahoo! News

Of course the willfully ignorant won't nor will the lying RW Fringers.

From the link:

"Anti-tax activists everywhere have been loudly arguing for an extension of George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the United States. Now a group of millionaires is arguing the opposite.

More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

"For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled

 

[The Rabbi]

Youre right, it was off point.
You're wrong, who the **** cares what some liberal whiners think?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Youre right, it was off point.
You're wrong, who the **** cares what some liberal whiners think?

Rabbi, if you think (LOL, of course you don't) ... if you believe using the word "****" impresses the reader or makes you appear manly or not stupid, you're wrong.
As a partisan, you're simply a parrot, words are posted but nothing stubstantial or thought provoking.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you agree Rabbi (LOL, his own 'logic') that you're a liar and a moron. Good, issued resolved.

 

[Trajan]

So you agree Rabbi (LOL, his own 'logic') that you're a liar and a moron. Good, issued resolved.

Rabbi, if you think (LOL, of course you don't) ... if you believe using the word "****" impresses the reader or makes you appear manly or not stupid, you're wrong.
As a partisan, you're simply a parrot, words are posted but nothing stubstantial or thought provoking.

hummmmm

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi and Liability, among others, share that: failed attempts to provoke without being thought provoking.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Rabbi and Liability, among others, share that: failed attempts to provoke without being thought provoking.

Trajan is of the same cut. I wonder what these people do for a living, they can't be capable of management or even supervision; and full of hate for union workers and government workers, they likley lack the skills to pass tests. I suppose they must be self-employed - who else would hire them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They all may be, like The Rabbi, on government assistance.