bbbut Bush...

Well, it'a all about priorities.

I guess that makes the ones the Republicans did ok then, right? Introducing the Bandwagon Fallacy!

FireZs: Well, it'a all about priorities.

Which during the Bush Administration has been endless war and budget deficits as far as the eye can see. We haven't even paid for one penny of the Iraq War yet - it's all been funded by deficit spending.

This would have worked better had it been written "Earmarks? In my Democratic-run Congress's budget? ..."

Not all earmarks are bad. We need things like roads, bridges, fire stations and senior centers.

it's funny that this is the issue the "real conservatives" are told to get all stampy and frothy about, an issue that accounts for very small percentage of the budget. I'm sure that is why your "fiscally responsible" leaders are going after them as something to change, and the funny thing about it is, it never will anways.

Non-story; both parties do this. It's nothing new.

McCain's moratorium was a good idea: and yes, he begrudgingly gets props for not introducing any earmarks of his own (except for those times he "inserted" his own "earmark" into a female lobbyist's "budget").

Hilldog and Obama both voted for McCain's moratorium, which was smart in an election year. Politics? Maybe. But it was still the right vote. All our Presidential candidates get an A on this one, and THE SYSTEM (not the current Congress) gets the F.

PC LOAD LETTER: I guess that makes the ones the Republicans did ok then, right? Introducing the Bandwagon Fallacy!

What are you talking about? Obviously the Republican Congress never earmarked anything!

vernonFL: Not all earmarks are bad. We need things like roads, bridges, fire stations and senior centers.

If that's the case, then congress shouldn't have to hoodwink to get appropriations for them.

FireZs: Well, it'a all about priorities.

Like bridges and levees that collapse.

Its criminal negligence to be sending tillions of dollars to Iraq while infrastructure here needs to be fixed.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral:(except for those times he "inserted" his own "earmark" into a female lobbyist's "budget")

(except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens

Nice headline subby, because we're all aware that republicans never spend money on earmarks or pointless and destructive wars.

Weren't they going to change everything?? For the better?? New Congress...
// And people are shocked! Shocked I say to see that they are just as bad if not worse then the "old" Congress. At least the "old" Congress didn't promise you the moon and deliver a moon? But Congress is worthless no matter who is in charge.
TERM LIMITS! Sick of the same 'ol song and dance

USP .45: The Dreaded Rear Admiral:(except for those times he "inserted" his own "earmark" into a female lobbyist's "budget")

(except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens

Touche, sir.

I also see you lampooned the Bridge to Nowhere, a sacred cow of a Repuublican Congressman and a Republican Senator. At least you're being equal opportunity now. Is this a new, improved USP .45?

There's nothing inherently wrong with earmarks, but don't let them ride on bills... make them be voted on separately.

I don't see the problem here.

Ok, bloated pork belly earmarks = problem.

But isn't a spending bill just a big earmark?
I mean how many billion earmarked for IRAQ.

Would it be better for Congress to simply open the purse strings and let the executive branch decide where to use the money?

I want my congressman to tack on an earmark for my district, that's why the hell he's there, to support his people back home.

USP .45: (except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens

That's a whole lot of stupid, but it's cool because Rush will be on in an hour to give you todays reality free talking points.

I'm over it now: bbbut Bush...

Actually I was going to say b-b-b-but politicians! "Tax and spend" or "Borrow and spend" seem to be our only choices nowadays...

-Everyone's your brother till the rent comes due

Shocking!

Earmarks direct funds that have already been approved for spending. If you think less earmarks means less spending, you don't understand how it works.

I used this example in another thread: if you tell your wife she has $100 to spend at the grocery store and your son says he wants Doritos, you can tell him "no" and feel proud of yourself for eliminating an earmark. But your wife is still going to spend that $100 at the grocery store because you already approved it. The earmark had no effect whatsoever on spending.

The whole earmark debate is a giant red herring, and unfortunately too many people are falling for it.

Well, duh! It's okay. Quit freaking out. They're OUR earmarks. You know, the good ones.

(All hands are dirty.)

USP .45: (except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens

how cute, when he get's mad his face turns red like a little strawberry!

I wonder how much they earmarked for the kool-aid the flock is drinking?

It's time to undo everything Bush has done in the past Eight years.

Suck it, neocons.

Earmarks in a Democratic-run Congress's budget? It is as likely as you'd think

FTFY

jcooli09: That's a whole lot of stupid, but it's cool because Rush will be on in an hour to give you todays reality free talking points.

.5/10

So we're supposed to get all upset over the $18.3 billion in earmarks but we're supposed to be okay with the $12 billion/month the Iraq war is costing us and the $515 billion+ defense budget (not counting "emergency supplementals")?

Don't get me wrong, I do think the earmarking system should be reformed. But I think all these articles about it are meant to distract from the bigger issues of fiscal irresponsibility that are going on. Notice how most of these articles don't mention the numbers? I think this is so that people might draw the conclusion that earmarks are busting the budget or something.

jcooli09: Nice headline subby, because we're all aware that republicans never spend money on earmarks or pointless and destructive wars.

Earmarks only became a big deal under Bush II and his Republican majorities in Congress. Since 2006, the Democratic majorities in Congress have done more to reign in earmark spending than Republicans did in the previous 6 years.

Anyway, this is a pointless debate because the next Congress will actually decide on this issue and other budget issues. This vote was just a sneak preview, but the until the actual premiere the cast could change.

Headso: how cute, when he get's mad his face turns red like a little strawberry!

4/10 for the South Park reference.

Deduction of 2/10 for trying to be condescending while using a South Park reference.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: I also see you lampooned the Bridge to Nowhere, a sacred cow of a Repuublican Congressman and a Republican Senator. At least you're being equal opportunity now.

GIS =/= "lampoon"

But yes, I'm for "equaliteh and opportuniteh in Amer'cah," as the messiah would put it.

USP .45: The Dreaded Rear Admiral:(except for those times he "inserted" his own "earmark" into a female lobbyist's "budget")

(except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens



Phantom-Mutt religion?

USP .45: The Dreaded Rear Admiral:(except for those times he "inserted" his own "earmark" into a female lobbyist's "budget")

(except those times Obama "earmarked" doctrine from the Koran and "inserted" it into his own phantom-mutt religion)


/yeah, well that's what happens



BEWARE THE PHANTOM MUTT!!!

USP .45: Headso: how cute, when he get's mad his face turns red like a little strawberry!

4/10 for the South Park reference.

Deduction of 2/10 for trying to be condescending while using a South Park reference.


Trolls are giving troll ratings now?! Oh, wait, it's just USP .45. Damn, not really a troll, they have the capacity to be clever.

This is an area in which neither party has any room for bragging. They're both totally corrupt.

carmody: This is an area in which neither party has any room for bragging. They're both totally corrupt.

I agree, but I think the on-budget pork and wasteful spending is a worse problem overall. The lack of public accountability for earmarks is a problem, but it's a drop in the bucket as far as overall government spending goes.

Yea, see this, go ahead and double check it. It shows how earmarks have skyrocketed under republican control and has severely dropped now that Dems have control.

You keep smear Reps, it's all you're good at. Hey, someone's got to be good at something, right. Why don't you just admit that you are the party of smears, deceit, and backstabbing principles. Not to say the Dems are all that much better, but the numbers don't lie.

So just keep on spouting your nonsense, keep on twisting the facts, because God knows you need all the help you can get.

vernonFL: Not all earmarks are bad. We need things like roads, bridges, fire stations and senior centers.

as well as medical research, scientific research...

kasmel who?

Space_Poet: Yea, see this, go ahead and double check it. It shows how earmarks have skyrocketed under republican control and has severely dropped now that Dems have control.

You keep smear Reps, it's all you're good at. Hey, someone's got to be good at something, right. Why don't you just admit that you are the party of smears, deceit, and backstabbing principles. Not to say the Dems are all that much better, but the numbers don't lie.

So just keep on spouting your nonsense, keep on twisting the facts, because God knows you need all the help you can get.

fiscal responsibility? in my democratic party? it's more likely than you think.

The Conservatives aren't running the Republican Party right now. Believe me, McCain wasn't our choice.

The reason McCain can get away with being against earmarks is because his state gets a ton of money appropriated to private contractors from the fed. And if you don't think regular spending bills don't reflect his hope to help those companies, you're fooling yourself.



Over $10 billion for the state of Arizona last year. Not too shabby.

Well done, Space_Poet.

I have no idea how this party can say one thing, do the opposite, and everyone believe the words and not the deeds. IMO, it shows how people are more interested in hearing the lies from the am radio pundits than actually researching their claims. What do you expect from people who get their political information from a medium that seems to only have pseudo-conservative pundits, sports talk, and religious programming?

Wow. 14,000 pork projects in 2005 and 2000 in 2007. Remind me why I'm supposed to be outraged at the Democrats?

Shaggy_C: The reason McCain can get away with being against earmarks is because his state gets a ton of money appropriated to private contractors from the fed.

Right because congress doesn't control military spending, and earmarks aren't questionable in their own right.

USP .45: Right because congress doesn't control military spending, and earmarks aren't questionable in their own right.

Right because congress doesn't control earmark spending, and military contracts aren't questionable in their own right.

USP .45: vernonFL: Not all earmarks are bad. We need things like roads, bridges, fire stations and senior centers.

If that's the case, then congress shouldn't have to hoodwink to get appropriations for them.

And as I understand it, an earmark doesn't add any new spending to budgets, they just carve up pieces of various appropriations and designate those funds for specific projects. So example a bridge building earmark would simply allocate a portion of the Transportation Agency's budget to that purpose. I don't really see what all the bruhaha is about.

PC LOAD LETTER: I guess that makes the ones the Republicans did ok then, right? Introducing the Bandwagon Fallacy!

Speaking of the bandwagon fallacy... pointing out the Republicans' bad behavior does not excuse the Democrats. They won in 2006 partly because they promised transparency and fiscal responsibility. They haven't delivered either promise. I, for one, am not happy with either party, and will excuse neither. Just because one person did something wrong does not make it ok for another person to do it.

Space_Poet: Yea, see this, go ahead and double check it. It shows how earmarks have skyrocketed under republican control and has severely dropped now that Dems have control.

You keep smear Reps, it's all you're good at. Hey, someone's got to be good at something, right. Why don't you just admit that you are the party of smears, deceit, and backstabbing principles. Not to say the Dems are all that much better, but the numbers don't lie.

So just keep on spouting your nonsense, keep on twisting the facts, because God knows you need all the help you can get.

You don't think that has something to do with bills getting vetoed? They stick earmarks into every bill, not just approriations bills.

Nemo's Brother: The Conservatives aren't running the Republican Party right now. Believe me, McCain wasn't our choice.

who was the conservative choice?