House of Corruption...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/house_of_corruption.html

Now, can we please end all the crap about it just being one party or the other that is corrupt? 1300 friggin earmarks.... no bid contracts awarded to bribe the representatives constituents to keep voting for their respective rep.

Keep up this type of leadership in the House and it will be closer in 2008 than you want. Both parties are guilty, but the backlash is going to come harder against those that JUST ran on "cleaning up the House" and being "more ethical".
 
Superfreak said:
Keep up that attitude tool.... and 2008 is going to bite you.
Click to expand...


If the numbers you posted are correct, and assuming Bush wasn't lying on the white house website (a big assumption), earmarks have dropped ten fold from 2005.

I'd run on that record.
 
Cypress said:
If the numbers you posted are correct, and assuming Bush wasn't lying on the white house website (a big assumption), earmarks have dropped ten fold from 2005.

I'd run on that record.
Click to expand...
Nope, that was all of 2005, this was one bill. You are being disingenuous.
 
Unless you think they'll only pass 9 bills, they are seriously on their way to far more earmarks than ever before.
 
Superfreak said:
Also Cypress... I thought you libs were against no bid contracts being awarded??? Or is it just when a Rep does it?
Click to expand...


In principle, I'm against no bid contracts.

The Democrats never campaigned on a promise to END earmarks. They said they would enact reforms to make congressmen/women publically identify the earmarks they request.
 
Cypress said:
In principle, I'm against no bid contracts.

The Democrats never campaigned on a promise to END earmarks. They said they would enact reforms to make congressmen/women publically identify the earmarks they request.
Click to expand...
And, on priciple, which ones, in this bill alone, have been publicly identified?
 
damo, I don't have time to read a whole legislative bill.

And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.
 
Cypress said:
damo, I don't have time to read a whole legislative bill.

And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.
Click to expand...
realclearpolitics is a very non-partisan source. They link to editorials, this one is not "non-partisan" but then no editorial is. Go to a blogspot that lists all the publicized earmarks for the bill, please. Tell me all about them. Out of 1300 you should be able to easily identify a few.
 
Damocles said:
And, on priciple, which ones, in this bill alone, have been publicly identified?
Click to expand...

There was a big piece in the Times yesterday about democratic earmarks, and they were for hospitals. Hospitals in low income areas. The Republicans were bitching up a storm, and I thought, this just goes to show you, it's not about the money spent, the money will always be spent. The differences are, where.

And I, like most dems, liberals, and even moderates, are not going to have a problem with money going to low income hospitals, in an attempt to expand health care for low income children.
 
Darla said:
There was a big piece in the Times yesterday about democratic earmarks, and they were for hospitals. Hospitals in low income areas. The Republicans were bitching up a storm, and I thought, this just goes to show you, it's not about the money spent, the money will always be spent. The differences are, where.

And I, like most dems, liberals, and even moderates, are not going to have a problem with money going to low income hospitals, in an attempt to expand health care for low income children.
Click to expand...
So, the other side bitching about it is the only "publicity" the earmarks are getting, even after the D promise to ensure publicity of earmarks?
 
Exactly Darla.

Democrats are committed to increasing VA funding, for vets.

Is building a VA Hospital in Virginia, really "Pork"? Given, that we need to ramp up services for Vets.
 
Damocles said:
So, the other side bitching about it is the only "publicity" the earmarks are getting, even after the D promise to ensure publicity of earmarks?
Click to expand...

The article said the earmarks were listed, but hard to track back to exactly which hospitals. The reporter did it though.
 
Damocles said:
So, the other side bitching about it is the only "publicity" the earmarks are getting, even after the D promise to ensure publicity of earmarks?
Click to expand...


I have never been against earmarks, if they are spent on Legitimate purposes: VA Hospitals, Katrina, interstate highway maintainence.

The problem is when pork is spent on projects that aren't needed - bridge to nowwhere, and crap like that.
 
Cypress said:
I have never been against earmarks, if they are spent on Legitimate purposes: VA Hospitals, Katrina, interstate highway maintainence.

The problem is when pork is spent on projects that aren't needed - bridge to nowwhere, and crap like that.
Click to expand...
Once again, the promise is to ensure publicity of the earmarks. We know one so far, and that is because somebody bitched about it, not because the Ds did as they promised.

I agree stupid bridges to nowhere should be ended. But the reality is that this one about hospitals cannot be all 1300 earmarks in this one bill.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, the promise is to ensure publicity of the earmarks. We know one so far, and that is because somebody bitched about it, not because the Ds did as they promised.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that exactly. I can try and find the article, but sometimes it's hard to without the exact headline. I'll go check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top