Is A Pork-Free Diet Killing the Tea Party

[nodoginnafight]

Watching the House debate, especially in committee, a Republican with rail against spending for a certain program but slip in a little, 'but my case is an exception'. Earmarks might have gotten a really bad name for themselves, some of that justified, but it seems counterproductive to eliminate earmarks altogether. They serve a very valuable function.

I guess some projects may be legitimate, but how do you weed out the frivolous from the legitimate since they are rarely individually debated. They are most often passed out like Halloween candy for the good little boys and girls who vote in favor of a particular piece of legislation.

That's the beauty of modern technology. It is so much easier to follow where the dollars go now. It really changes the nature of the game.

That's true - but how many people actually follow those dollars?

The problem with Edge's analogy about the grocery store is (imho) we aren't talking about a fixed number of dollars that will be spent anyway. His definition of "earmark" is also not how other people use the word.

 

[Erand7899]

I don't know that the Coburn thing is really illustrative, but here in Miss a storm is ah-brewin. The TP challenger to Thad Cochran opposed Fema. We just had tornados, and Katrina is still a memory.

I don't consider FEMA an earmark. Especially the flood insurance - those people pay premiums for that insurance. IMHO it's wrong to accept the premiums and then balk on paying the claims.

The TP'ers were opposed to paying out following Hurricane Sandy. How much of that was political as opposed to principal?

The Tea party is not opposed to paying out after a disaster. They are opposed to handing out government money to people who have no legitimate claim on that money. Government has an obligation, during and following a large disaster to provide necessary emergency aid, and restore necessary services and infrastructure. It has no business attempting to make businesses and/or individual residents whole again. If people and/or businesses have purchased flood insurance, then government should pay on those policies. If people did not purchase flood insurance, then they are on their own resources, just like all other citizens.

 

[guno]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a scared and desperate liberal proclaim "the Tea Party is dead" I'd be the world's first trillionaire right now...

Funny thing is, they are stronger and more influential than ever (hence the fear from the left)

The avg age of the teabagger is 66, old white bitter geriatric depends diaper wearing and ensure drinker and walker user, they will be gone soon

 

[nodoginnafight]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a scared and desperate liberal proclaim "the Tea Party is dead" I'd be the world's first trillionaire right now...

Funny thing is, they are stronger and more influential than ever (hence the fear from the left)

The avg age of the teabagger is 66, old white bitter geriatric depends diaper wearing and ensure drinker and walker user, they will be gone soon

Well, history (Jimmy Carter) tells us they cannot survive in Washington for very long.

As for me, I can sure do without their social agenda, but I support fiscal responsibility and declaring war on the U.S. debt.

 

[Howey]

Is it possible that the Tea Party's insistence on banning earmarks is why they are losing influence on the Hill?

au contraire, my friend.

The teabaggers are major recipients of pork.

Tea Party Lawmakers Grabbing Pork Barrel Spending

So that leaves only one obvious answer to your question.

They're losing influence on the hill because the hill has finally realized they're

BAT SHIT CRAZY!​

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't consider FEMA an earmark. Especially the flood insurance - those people pay premiums for that insurance. IMHO it's wrong to accept the premiums and then balk on paying the claims.

The TP'ers were opposed to paying out following Hurricane Sandy. How much of that was political as opposed to principal?

The Tea party is not opposed to paying out after a disaster. They are opposed to handing out government money to people who have no legitimate claim on that money. Government has an obligation, during and following a large disaster to provide necessary emergency aid, and restore necessary services and infrastructure. It has no business attempting to make businesses and/or individual residents whole again. If people and/or businesses have purchased flood insurance, then government should pay on those policies. If people did not purchase flood insurance, then they are on their own resources, just like all other citizens.

Your claims are not accurate.
Paul Ryan and 67 others voted against funding FEMA to pay claims.
The Tea Party held up the Sandy Relief demanding an equal amount of cuts in defense and domestic spending. They tried to hold the relief hostage to extract their cuts.

Cutting spending is a good thing - but the Tea Partists try to get those cuts by holding a gun to everyone else's head. Politically stupid - folks don't respond well to blackmail. So it is stupidity that is killing the drive for spending reforms.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Is it possible that the Tea Party's insistence on banning earmarks is why they are losing influence on the Hill?

au contraire, my friend.

The teabaggers are major recipients of pork.

Tea Party Lawmakers Grabbing Pork Barrel Spending

So that leaves only one obvious answer to your question.

They're losing influence on the hill because the hill has finally realized they're

BAT SHIT CRAZY!​

The definition of "earmark" gets loosely tossed about, but the tea party-led ban has been in effect since the start of the 112th Congress.

 

[Howey]

The definition of "earmark" gets loosely tossed about, but the tea party-led ban has been in effect since the start of the 112th Congress.

True. They merely change the name to not look like the crooks they are.

btw...seems like the IRS was correct to investigate them and more investigations are on the way.

Looks like of all that money they collect, only a small amount goes to candidates. The rest is pocketed.

Oh, those poor gullible teabaggers!

WaPo: Tea Party PACs spend most of their cash on themselves « Hot Air

 

[cutter]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a scared and desperate liberal proclaim "the Tea Party is dead" I'd be the world's first trillionaire right now...

Funny thing is, they are stronger and more influential than ever (hence the fear from the left)

The avg age of the teabagger is 66, old white bitter geriatric depends diaper wearing and ensure drinker and walker user, they will be gone soon

Who worked for 40 years at a job as opposed to the young educated unemployed liberals sitting at their parents home playing computer games crying about how the world owes them a living.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a scared and desperate liberal proclaim "the Tea Party is dead" I'd be the world's first trillionaire right now...

Funny thing is, they are stronger and more influential than ever (hence the fear from the left)

The avg age of the teabagger is 66, old white bitter geriatric depends diaper wearing and ensure drinker and walker user, they will be gone soon

Who worked for 40 years at a job as opposed to the young educated unemployed liberals sitting at their parents home playing computer games crying about how the world owes them a living.

No room for "Mr. In-Between," huh?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ahhh another thread from our resident "I'm impartial" poster who incidentally only bashes one side of the isle.

Frauds are funny creatures

 

[nodoginnafight]

The decline of Tea Party influence (30 % approval in the latest Gallop) may be linked to the opposition of the establishment's addiction to pork or it could be linked to the way the Tea Party has moved into social issues.

72% of those polled say they favor smaller government. That used to be the only thing the Tea Party was interested in. In 2014 only 14% of Tea Party members said social issues were more important to them than economic issues.

"... now hear Judson Phillips, the head of Tea Party Nation, a group that once said social issues were “just not something that is on our radar,” denouncing gay marriage as “a freak show, involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs, and a Bengal tiger.” Or Scottie Neil Hughes, of the Tea Party News Network, suggesting that women who have abortions should be jailed. And, during last summer’s congressional town-hall season, Tea Party Patriots was organizing not against Obamacare or raising the debt ceiling, but against immigration reform."

Why the Tea Party?s Waning, Not Winning | National Review Online

So, if "message drift" is the problem, then shouldn't this be a wake-up call?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tell me more, please sir....

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm sorry, but the earmark system is the root cause of one of the largest fundamental problems with how our government legislates.

Why in the **** are we including all sorts of unrelated shit in a single law in the -first- place? Why would we want our legislators voting on anything -but- the crux of each issue? Why should people be voting up or down on a law that's going to effect 300 million people based on whether or not they get some extra building funds?

The acceptance of this bullshit method of "getting things done" is why we have laws that are 60,000 ******* pages long that nobody reads before they vote. We have government officials being asked about shit like that and saying, on television, that one can't realistically expect someone to take the insane amount of time it would require to read all these nonsensically large pieces of legislation before voting. Let that sink in. Lawmakers feel like it's not only justifiable, but OBVIOUSLY justifiable that they WOULDN'T READ LEGISLATION BEFORE DECIDING ON IT!

Part of the problem is that we've let our statist culture tell us that the value of our government can be determined by how much they "get done". Am I to believe that more legislation is automatically better legislation? We need to let them be a little corrupt and a little stupid about the laws they're passing so that they'll pass more of them? Where's the ******* logic in that?

WHY THE **** WOULD WE ACCEPT THIS!? Is it really worthwhile to let ignorance decide our fate for the benefit of having it decided more often and more rapidly? Is everybody -that- ******* stupid?

Sometimes, I wish I could resign my membership from this dumb **** species.

So you're all for giving people BILLIONS of dollars with no direction on how it should be spent?

An 'earmark' says, "Look, here's 10 Billion Dollars but EVERY PENNY OF IT has to be spent on what the **** we're giving it to you for.

Earmarks are a blessing, not a curse.

"Pork" is not necessarily part of earmarks.

You give the Defense Department a TRILLION Dollars and they go out and spend it on hookers and golf, think you'd be a little pissed?

It's "EARMARKED" for things like, 10 Billion for an Aircraft, 100 Billion for a pay raise, 50 Billion for pensions....

Too many of you just don't understand the system

OK, here's an example. There was a bridge over the Miss River, south of Memphis (where there's a big roadway bridge) and north of Vicksburg (where there's also a big interstate bridge). The bridge was built in the 30s, and it's purpose was to let agricultural equipment to move back and forth. Unfortantely, the thing was a magnet for the huge river barges because when they build it, they didn't understand river currents, or the currents changed. Anyway, every year it'd shut down barge traffic, costing millions in losses.

You got maybe 12-20 senators with any interest in fixing it. And, it's gonna be expensive to remove a bridge from the Mississippi R and build a new one. But, over time, it'll pay for itself.

The answer: an earmark.

Now Coburn is saying you ought to be able to get 51, or 60, senators to pass that. But the fact is, it ain't that easy.

Again, (imho) it's all in the definition.

When I think of earmarks I think of projects with no impact outside a particular congressional district. But, it's obvious that there are almost as many definitions as there are people. And sure, the more geographically limited the impact, the harder it is to pass. But that may be part of the point. I think legislators have made it way too easy to spend our money.

It might be naive to think that lawmakers should spend based on the merit of the project rather than the impact on their chances for re-election, but that's where I'm at.

Am I expecting too much?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a scared and desperate liberal proclaim "the Tea Party is dead" I'd be the world's first trillionaire right now...

Funny thing is, they are stronger and more influential than ever (hence the fear from the left)

Well their sinking approval ratings seem to contradict that idea.

 

[Howey]

Who worked for 40 years at a job as opposed to the young educated unemployed liberals sitting at their parents home playing computer games crying about how the world owes them a living.

The only people I know of who have such a disdain for the Greatest Generation (excluding teabaggers) are young libertarian milennials.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Who worked for 40 years at a job as opposed to the young educated unemployed liberals sitting at their parents home playing computer games crying about how the world owes them a living.

The only people I know of who have such a disdain for the Greatest Generation (excluding teabaggers) are young libertarian milennials.

Many modern Libertarians are a modern reflection (in foreign policy terms at least) of the America First folks who fought against U.S. involvement in WW II. So I guess I can see the links that might cause them to discount the sacrifices and accomplishments of the "Greatest Generation."

They fail to see the web that connects all of us. In the case of the America First folks, it is more understandable (imho) because today, these connections are far more obvious.