House of Corruption...

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...

Do I wish the Democrats had gone farther with earmark reform? Yes.

Have they gone farther with reform than the republicans ever did in the years they held congress? Yes, they have.


I'll listen to bitching from fellow democrats on earmark reform.

Bitching from those who voted for the republican congress from 2001-2006, is disingenous at best. ;)
 
There are 1300 earmarks in this one bill Darla, where is the publicized earmark list? They promised to publicize these things, I want the list.
 
Cypress said:
Do I wish the Democrats had gone farther with earmark reform? Yes.

Have they gone farther with reform than the republicans ever did in the years they held congress? Yes, they have.


I'll listen to bitching from fellow democrats on earmark reform.

Bitching from those who voted for the republican congress from 2001-2006, is disingenous at best. ;)
Click to expand...
Holding people to campaign promises is not "bitching", bitching is worrying about money spent on hospitals when "my" earmarks would be far more controversial, as in the article that Darla spoke of.

The first thing they did was pass unfunded legislation and their "pay as you go" promise was poop from the beginning.
 
Damocles said:
There are 1300 earmarks in this one bill Darla, where is the publicized earmark list? They promised to publicize these things, I want the list.
Click to expand...

LOL. Oh I see. Well, I think you and SF will have plenty to bitch about. I doubt that the new Democratic president will be able to remove ALL troops from Iraq within two months of taking office either.

As for earmarks, patience. If, if, if 07 should end and there should not be a real difference in the amount of earmarks, then the R's can run on it. If there is a real difference, then the D's can run on it. We'll see. It's not exactly my big issue, unless you thought I spend my weekends standing on corners with signs saying "END THE EARMARKS" rather than 'END THE WAR".
 
Darla said:
LOL. Oh I see. Well, I think you and SF will have plenty to bitch about. I doubt that the new Democratic president will be able to remove ALL troops from Iraq within two months of taking office either.

As for earmarks, patience. If, if, if 07 should end and there should not be a real difference in the amount of earmarks, then the R's can run on it. If there is a real difference, then the D's can run on it. We'll see. It's not exactly my big issue, unless you thought I spend my weekends standing on corners with signs saying "END THE EARMARKS" rather than 'END THE WAR".
Click to expand...
Nah, Nobody could, the geographic bottleneck alone would stop that from happening. Nor am I a one issue voter, even during wartime. Were I, I wouldn't have voted Kerry, I definitely would have voted Badnarik (as I did) but only because he was the only candidate speaking of ending the war.
 
Damocles said:
Holding people to campaign promises is not "bitching", bitching is worrying about money spent on hospitals when "my" earmarks would be far more controversial, as in the article that Darla spoke of.

The first thing they did was pass unfunded legislation and their "pay as you go" promise was poop from the beginning.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wish Democrats had gone farther on earmark reforms.

Those that voted for the status quo and for republicans in 2006, are in no position to bitch. They voted for the status quo, not for change. Why would they care if the system didn't change much? They voted to keep the status quo republicans in power.

The only people who can legitimately bitch, are those who voted for reform. ;)
 
Cypress said:
Yeah, I wish Democrats had gone farther on earmark reforms.

Those that voted for the status quo and for republicans in 2006, are in no position to bitch. They voted for the status quo, not for change. Why would they care if the system didn't change much? They voted to keep the status quo republicans in power.

The only people who can legitimately bitch, are those who voted for reform. ;)
Click to expand...
Let me see.. I voted for Badnarick over Bush, Salazar over Coors... Hmmm... It seems that I have the right to "bitch" then doesn't it? Your argument in defense is lame.
 
Damo, if I can find the time, I'll look into this more. And email my congresswoman. If they reformed the system to make earmarks public, they shouldn't be using obscure parliamentery manuevers to make that information difficult to find.
 
Cypress said:
Damo, if I can find the time, I'll look into this more. And email my congresswoman. If they reformed the system to make earmarks public, they shouldn't be using obscure parliamentery manuevers to make that information difficult to find.
Click to expand...
Cool. Somehow I doubt my Congressman would help me on this one... :D
 
Damocles - If you want the list I'm sure you can get it. They don't have to mail the thing to you for the list to be "public." In fact, I'm sure the representatives themselves would be more than happy to let you know how much money they got funneled to their district, just tell them you are a constituent.

Another point: earmarks really are not that big of a deal in terms of federal dollars spent. If I recall correctly, even the record-setting amount of earmarks in 2006 amounted to something like just less than .03% of the federal budget. That's less that three-tenths of one percent. Not that much an issue really.

One final point, earmarks are not corruption. Getting kickbacks and bribes for earmarks is. Robert Novak certainly know that this is true and his hit-piece is completely dishonest on this point.
 
so "earmarking" federal funds for a specific project is a bad thing ?

yes much better to let the local govt spend the money on a stadium instead of a hospital ;)
 
This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break. Somehow I doubt a partisan site would publish articles from far right sites like Drudge and far left sites like the Nation.

That is one of the most balanced sites you will find. It provides links to all the major polls and most major publications - right AND left leaning... Not every publication will be on there every day, but when you constantly see articles from the LA times, the San Fran chronicle, and the NY times... you can hardly act like it is partisan.

As for the comments acting like the earmarks are no big deal.... then what the hell was all the bitching about when the Reps were in control???????????
 
uscitizen said:
so "earmarking" federal funds for a specific project is a bad thing ?

yes much better to let the local govt spend the money on a stadium instead of a hospital ;)
Click to expand...

Putting earmarks on a defense bill that are not requested and that have nothing to do with defense... is wrong. If you want those "earmarks" paid for, do it legitimately on their own. Up or down votes.

Too bad your boy Murtha leads the way in bribes spent (I mean earmarks funded)

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/03/billions_in_earmarks_added_to_defense_bill/1869/
 
Superfreak said:
This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break. Somehow I doubt a partisan site would publish articles from far right sites like Drudge and far left sites like the Nation.

That is one of the most balanced sites you will find. It provides links to all the major polls and most major publications - right AND left leaning... Not every publication will be on there every day, but when you constantly see articles from the LA times, the San Fran chronicle, and the NY times... you can hardly act like it is partisan.

As for the comments acting like the earmarks are no big deal.... then what the hell was all the bitching about when the Reps were in control???????????
Click to expand...



This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break.

You posted an opinion article, by noted rightwing tool Bob Novak. I'm not in the habit of taking Mr. Novak's word for anything.
 
Superfreak said:
This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break. Somehow I doubt a partisan site would publish articles from far right sites like Drudge and far left sites like the Nation.

That is one of the most balanced sites you will find. It provides links to all the major polls and most major publications - right AND left leaning... Not every publication will be on there every day, but when you constantly see articles from the LA times, the San Fran chronicle, and the NY times... you can hardly act like it is partisan.

As for the comments acting like the earmarks are no big deal.... then what the hell was all the bitching about when the Reps were in control???????????
Click to expand...

YOu'd never find one word from me about "earmarks". I didn't even know what they were until McCain started bitching about them in another one of his attempts to be portrayed as a "maverick". And it was when the maverick McCain, whom the male press corps has a man crush on, started bitching about them, that they got coverage.

I care about how money is spent. If i hear that 1/2 a billion is going to for some BS that some corporation wanted, when the same politician is voting to cut section 8 funding, or his state's CHIPS funding, then I get really pissed.

When I hear that the dems are loading a bill up with money earmarked to individual low income hospitals in an attempt to circumvent the Bush veto pen for expanding coverage for poor children, I think, excellent, can't wait till we have a dem president and we don't have to bury this stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top