Ron Paul

/Ron Paul

I think, if you check, you'll discover that refusing to ask for earmarks is not in the constitution.

Yet John McCain is

"... but he's not a conservative!!!"

I'm not going to stick around to argue this point too much, but why would I elect a Senator or Congressman that promised not to get money for the state or city that I live in. I elected him/her so that they can make my life better. If those ear marks are for crap like a bridge to no where or some giant hole in the ground thats one thing, but a congressman that fights for a larger share of federal money for my state's road/schools/downtown rejuvenation is doing his job.

Senators are Congressmen. You mean "Representatives." This is like third grade civics, man.

kronicfeld: You mean "Representatives."

Thats the one. In an attempt to avoid just using senator and having someone call me out that the people in the article were referring to representatives and not senators, i used the wrong one.

/Damnit!

Unless I'm horribly mistaken this isn't something he's ever hidden. His premise is that while he doesn't agree with the size of the federal government, the fact remains that his constituents pay taxes and part of his job is to make sure he brings money back to his district. So he continues to do that job for now but actively works to get the rules changed for the future.

Captain Latvia: I'm not going to stick around to argue this point too much, but why would I elect a Senator or Congressman that promised not to get money for the state or city that I live in. I elected him/her so that they can make my life better. If those ear marks are for crap like a bridge to no where or some giant hole in the ground thats one thing, but a congressman that fights for a larger share of federal money for my state's road/schools/downtown rejuvenation is doing his job.

Ron Paul has specifically talked about this a few times that I have read. It's basically what was posted above, although I'm sure with a little google-fu, it can be easily found.

Thoguh: Unless I'm horribly mistaken this isn't something he's ever hidden. His premise is that while he doesn't agree with the size of the federal government, the fact remains that his constituents pay taxes and part of his job is to make sure he brings money back to his district. So he continues to do that job for now but actively works to get the rules changed for the future.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Feingold '12!

Is there a list of which ones voted for the most pork?

Tatsuma: Yet John McCain is

"... but he's not a conservative knows Jack Kemp!!!"

FTFY

Snarfangel: Is there a list of which ones voted for the most pork?

Earmarks are not the same thing as pork. Granted, many earmarks do contain pork. Hmmm, bacon.

/STEVE HOLT!!!

who gives a shiat, is that guy even still alive?

Earmarks!! OMFG!

You know, things like roads, bridges, water treatment plants, fire engines etc... are all things that are 'earmarks'. They're not all bad.

Tatsuma: Yet John McCain is

"... but he's not a conservative!!!"

Keating 5

PurplePimpSaber: Feingold '12!

Gahh, no. I can appreciate the fact that he voted against the Un-Patriot act and all that, but still, NO.

Just a reminder, folks: Earmarks totaled $18 billion for the year. The budget this year? $3 trillion.

So we're talking 18,000,000,000/3,000,000,000,000 or a grand total of .6% of the budget. That's one half of one cent of every dollar that the government spends in a year. But it's the #1 idea Mr. Conservative McCain has to 'fix' the government.

Let's compare that, to, say, $548.8 billion in Defense spending, and a nice $243.7 billion payment on the national debt. Those two things alone make up almost a third of our outlays a year. Perhaps if McCain were so concerned about being conservative with taxpayer dollars, he would address these two items, by pledging to raise taxes to end the deficit spending and to scale back these ultraexpensive wars.

Stevens and Byrd top the list?

Shocking. I am shocked by this shocking news.

Shaggy_C: Let's compare that, to, say, $548.8 billion in Defense spending, and a nice $243.7 billion payment on the national debt. Those two things alone make up almost a third of our outlays a year. Perhaps if McCain were so concerned about being conservative with taxpayer dollars, he would address these two items, by pledging to raise taxes to end the deficit spending and to scale back these ultraexpensive wars.

*sigh* and grants that allow things like law clinics to exist were cut to the bone. :/

Shaggy_C,

Why did you choose the Military and not entitlement programs?

MyRandomName: Why did you choose the Military and not entitlement programs?

The military is an entitlement program.

Shaggy_C: So we're talking 18,000,000,000/3,000,000,000,000 or a grand total of .6% of the budget. That's one half of one cent of every dollar that the government spends in a year.

Well, gee, I guess we can really spare those 18 billions, uh? And the only way to fix the government is a huge overall change, and starting slowly and fixing what we can fix first is really pointless.

MyRandomName: Why did you choose the Military and not entitlement programs?

Because entitlement programs come from and go directly back to the people themselves. The actual administration of the SSA or Medicare cost very little, while the actual administration of the of the military costs much, much more. I'm talking about 'big government'; you know, areas that actually meaningfully increase the size of the bureaucracy.

Lionel Mandrake: MyRandomName: Why did you choose the Military and not entitlement programs?

The military is an entitlement program.

No, the Military and National Defense is one of the few areas declared under power of the government. It is actually one of the few areas the government is not overstepping it's bounds.

Shaggy_C: "...and to scale back these ultraexpensive wars."

Ain't gonna happen.

MyRandomName: entitlement programs

let me shift the paradigm and think outside the box to give you a solution...*getting lazy*...buzzword, buzzword, buzzword.

Tatsuma: Well, gee, I guess we can really spare those 18 billions, uh?

1) Those $18 billion were already accounted for in the budget - they would have been spent as 'general funds' otherwise.

2) The ferocity of complaints about .06% of the budget is a shameless red herring meant to distract from the real problem areas that need to be addressed.

Tatsuma: Shaggy_C: So we're talking 18,000,000,000/3,000,000,000,000 or a grand total of .6% of the budget. That's one half of one cent of every dollar that the government spends in a year.

Well, gee, I guess we can really spare those 18 billions, uh? And the only way to fix the government is a huge overall change, and starting slowly and fixing what we can fix first is really pointless.

It's the equivalent of switching from Bass to Natty Light when you have 15k in credit card debt. Calling it a day after that and not looking to restructure your finances isn't going to solve much.

And that's what we're doing.

MyRandomName: No, the Military and National Defense is one of the few areas declared under power of the government. It is actually one of the few areas the government is not overstepping it's bounds.

That's a matter of opinion, I guess.

I believe they spend way too much...it's corporate welfare for the Def. Industry.

Military is very important, but it is also a huge, fat slab of pork.

Shaggy_C: MyRandomName: Why did you choose the Military and not entitlement programs?

Because entitlement programs come from and go directly back to the people themselves. The actual administration of the SSA or Medicare cost very little, while the actual administration of the of the military costs much, much more. I'm talking about 'big government'; you know, areas that actually meaningfully increase the size of the bureaucracy.

I wouldn't say administration costs are very little. I believe in my city alone there are around 500 employees for DES. That isn't a small pay out. Plus there is a lot of bloat in the program already. The costs for Medicare is pretty substantial

Likewise one could argue the Military budget goes directly back to the people themselves as they employ many people (Military members, Engineers, etc, etc), plus the technological gains that have been garnered under the DoD budget (Microwaves, GPS, Jets, improved automobiles, MRI, etc, etc).

canyoneer: Ain't gonna happen.

There are two schools of thought on this:
1) The neoliberals think you can free the markets by becoming 'buddy-buddy' even with undesirable partners (see Clint0wn3d and China/N Korea).
2) The neoconservatives think you can free the markets by blowing up undesirable partners.

I think both accomplish the same end; one is simply cheaper than the other. I don't think you can say that we have only one choice.

Lionel Mandrake: MyRandomName: No, the Military and National Defense is one of the few areas declared under power of the government. It is actually one of the few areas the government is not overstepping it's bounds.

That's a matter of opinion, I guess.

I believe they spend way too much...it's corporate welfare for the Def. Industry.

Military is very important, but it is also a huge, fat slab of pork.

Is Medicare corporate welfare for the Health Industry?

canyoneer: Ain't gonna happen.

we could have secured Iraqi oil in a cheaper manner than we did, it may have been a slower process but it isn't like they are exporting at their max even now anyway..

Shaggy_C: 1) Those $18 billion were already accounted for in the budget - they would have been spent as 'general funds' otherwise.

Seeing as how money for earmarks is spent, I'd much prefer it went toward roads than marketing wild american shrimp or repair theaters (looking at you, Ron)

2) The ferocity of complaints about .06% of the budget is a shameless red herring meant to distract from the real problem areas that need to be addressed.

Earmarks still are a problem. We have to start cutting the pork spending somewhere.

MyRandomName: Is Medicare corporate welfare for the Health Industry?

In many ways, yes.

If you think the gov. spends wisely on defense, bully for you. I think there is more waste in Def. than all the silly earmarks that people get all bent out of shape about, that's all. The same slimy lobbyists and slimy politicians are at work.

Stupid move. Earmark spending is predetermined. Some other bureaucrat will decide were the extra money will go. No spending was cut.

Tatsuma: Earmarks still are a problem.

well, .06th of one atleast!

Lionel Mandrake: MyRandomName: Is Medicare corporate welfare for the Health Industry?

In many ways, yes.

If you think the gov. spends wisely on defense, bully for you. I think there is more waste in Def. than all the silly earmarks that people get all bent out of shape about, that's all. The same slimy lobbyists and slimy politicians are at work.

I can agree there's waste in the military system. I've seen it first hand. However I believe that any government system has built in waste inherent in itself. Even new programs build up waste quite fast, such as all the bonus' that went to TSA admins last year. Programs not even 10 years old and there's already scandals.

Headso: "we could have secured Iraqi oil in a cheaper manner than we did, it may have been a slower process but it isn't like they are exporting at their max even now anyway..

Well, there is reasonable doubt that Rumsfeld et. al. totally f*cked things up and ran the war based on a whacky ideology that willfully ignored sound advice and facts on the ground, but that doesn't minimize the value of controlling Iraqi oil going forward (as you well know).

Too bad they didn't listen to McCain and Shinseki and the "flood the zone" school of thought from the beginning. If they had, things would be much better in Iraq than they are now, and it wouldn't have cost so much in lives and treasure. Rumsfeld was penny-wise-pound-foolish, to put it bluntly.

BTW, even in the face of a possible global recession, oil is creeping back up towards $100/barrel. Nigeia's output was off 25% last year.(new window)

No, I don't think the ultra-expensive war is going to be scaled back any time soon.

Headso: Tatsuma: Earmarks still are a problem.

well, .06th of one atleast!

The problem with earmarks isn't the cost for me, it's the corruption it breeds. You know the... "If you donate 10k to my campaign I'll get you a billion dollar construction project" type of thing.

MyRandomName: I wouldn't say administration costs are very little.

Compared to the overall size in dollars of the program, it amounts to almost nothing. If you'r for 'small government,' Social Security and Medicare are not the places to attack for growing the bureaucracy; SSA workers make up a small percentage of the total US government workforce.

Total Federal workforce: 1,774,000
SSA: 62,000 (3%)
Defense Department: 623,000 (35%)
Link (new window)
Don't you dare tell me that you're against the SSA because you're for 'small government' while at the same time ignoring the size of the 800 lb gorilla standing next to it.

Err...no reasonable doubt, that is.

Feingold on the list, that was to be expected. Jeff Flake I kind of like.

Shaggy_C: Just a reminder, folks: Earmarks totaled $18 billion for the year. The budget this year? $3 trillion.

So we're talking 18,000,000,000/3,000,000,000,000 or a grand total of .6% of the budget. That's one half of one cent of every dollar that the government spends in a year.

Just for comparison's sake, that's also roughly the size of the NASA budget (the FY09 request is $17.6 billion, vs. the $18.68 billion Congress suggested back in 2005 when they authorized Moon/Mars). Kind of gives you a whole new perspective on just how gigantic the federal budget really is, huh?

Tatsuma: Earmarks still are a problem. We have to start cutting the pork spending somewhere.

Agreed. How about some of those multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to companies with heavy connections to the vice president?

Are earmarks all the Republicans have left to biatch about? Let's see, hatred of brown people? Bungled up war of choice, check. Hatred of teh ghey? Can't use that one, already did in the previous two elections. Not to mention your favorite toe tapping congresscritter or two. Teh turrists? Despite a few farkers around here most everyone has finally wiped their ass after the continual crapping of themselves over the past 6.5 years.

Simply put the Republicans have nothing and the vast majority of them hate their candidate. November is going to be ugly for the Elephants.

schnarff: Kind of gives you a whole new perspective on just how gigantic the federal budget really is, huh?

Nasa has 18,000 employees, which account for just over 1% of total employment by the government. It's sad that the department dedicated to exploration and discovery is dwarfed by almost every other major agency in the federal government. For shame, America, for shame.

It seems as if you simply listed how many employed are in each deparmShaggy_C: MyRandomName: I wouldn't say administration costs are very little.

Compared to the overall size in dollars of the program, it amounts to almost nothing. If you'r for 'small government,' Social Security and Medicare are not the places to attack for growing the bureaucracy; SSA workers make up a small percentage of the total US government workforce.

Total Federal workforce: 1,774,000
SSA: 62,000 (3%)
Defense Department: 623,000 (35%)
Link (new window)
Don't you dare tell me that you're against the SSA because you're for 'small government' while at the same time ignoring the size of the 800 lb gorilla standing next to it.

So you link me to how many people are employed in each area? The defense department includes all branches of the military. I expect it to have more people in that department. These are US Citizens who have JOBS protecting the country. SSA has 62000 people simply giving out monies to other people. How do you even correlate the two?

You are simply comparing apples to oranges here. One side employs people to do the job. The other side employs people to hand out money. It would be a fair comparison if you found the number of Department officials who simply over see Contracts. That would be an apt comparison.

canyoneer: Rumsfeld was penny-wise-pound-foolish, to put it bluntly.


Wow, you don't hold back.