Yes, Palin did stop that bridge

[-Cp]

OWNED!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[manu1959]

from the article............as someone said....when the dems accuse you they tend to be guilty of the accusation.....

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008


Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility." Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.


Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

[Joe Steel]

OWNED!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

ABSURD!

Larry Craig doesn't cruise restrooms anymore because he got caught. Sarah Palin stopped the bridge because she got caught by public opinion.

[Abbey Marie]

ABSURD!

Larry Craig doesn't cruise restrooms anymore because he got caught. Sarah Palin stopped the bridge because she got caught by public opinion.

Then why doesn't Joe Steel stop posting siily, unsubstantiated gossip? He's been caught many times. :poke:

[Yurt]

from the article............as someone said....when the dems accuse you they tend to be guilty of the accusation.....

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008


Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility." Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.


Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

:laugh2:

[Yurt]

ABSURD!

Larry Craig doesn't cruise restrooms anymore because he got caught. Sarah Palin stopped the bridge because she got caught by public opinion.

haven't been able to find him have you

[darin]

ABSURD!

Larry Craig doesn't cruise restrooms anymore because he got caught. Sarah Palin stopped the bridge because she got caught by public opinion.

yes. She got Caught making a fiscally-intelligent decision. Sue her. I hope she claimed Per Diem the day she drove in to kill that project.

[manu1959]

ABSURD!

Larry Craig doesn't cruise restrooms anymore because he got caught. Sarah Palin stopped the bridge because she got caught by public opinion.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

so obama voted for the bridge to nowhere .....

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

[JohnDoe]

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

so obama voted for the bridge to nowhere .....

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008
not relative...near ALL OF THE SENATE, both republicans and democrats voted against it....underlying reasons are not mentioned by you? Pelosi gave up more than half of her pork in the bill to go to katrina, and some other states pitched in too, after they got their own pork....they gave it up, for louisianna....

Alaska took the Pork and earmarked money anyway....$452 million dollars, to use as they please....the congress just said it could not be used on the bridge to nowhere....but Alaska TOOK our federal tax dollars anyway...

so this lie about her being against pork is utterly ridiculous...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/17/MNGF5FPI7N1.DTL

The money -- championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful head of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- was earmarked to help construct a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island in the Alaskan Inland Passage in the southeastern corner of the state. A ferry boat now provides transportation between the two points.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate decided to drop the project after it was derided by critics as "pork-barrel spending" on "the bridge to nowhere."

They also decided to ax $229 million for a bridge between Anchorage and the sparsely populated Knik area of Alaska. That span has been named "Don Young's Way" after Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped send federal dollars to the bridge.

Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.


Alaska took the PORK MONEY manu.....just not for the bridge, because CONGRESS killed it for the bridge.... 6 or 1/2 dozen...they took the pork money and she is implying that they did not imo....

jd

[manu1959]

obama voted to give her the pork ..... nuf said.....

also you may want to read the article before you start popping off.....



not relative...near ALL OF THE SENATE, both republicans and democrats voted against it....underlying reasons are not mentioned by you? Pelosi gave up more than half of her pork in the bill to go to katrina, and some other states pitched in too, after they got their own pork....they gave it up, for louisianna....

Alaska took the Pork and earmarked money anyway....$452 million dollars, to use as they please....the congress just said it could not be used on the bridge to nowhere....but Alaska TOOK our federal tax dollars anyway...

so this lie about her being against pork is utterly ridiculous...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/17/MNGF5FPI7N1.DTL

The money -- championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful head of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- was earmarked to help construct a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island in the Alaskan Inland Passage in the southeastern corner of the state. A ferry boat now provides transportation between the two points.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate decided to drop the project after it was derided by critics as "pork-barrel spending" on "the bridge to nowhere."

They also decided to ax $229 million for a bridge between Anchorage and the sparsely populated Knik area of Alaska. That span has been named "Don Young's Way" after Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped send federal dollars to the bridge.

Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.


Alaska took the PORK MONEY manu.....just not for the bridge, because CONGRESS killed it for the bridge.... 6 or 1/2 dozen...they took the pork money and she is implying that they did not imo....

jd

[JohnDoe]

obama voted to give her the pork ..... nuf said.....

also you may want to read the article before you start popping off.....

yes, Alaska got their $452 million in earmark money of ours....

near all of the Senate voting in favor of such does NOT in any way excuse the lie being told.

She is not AGAINST EARMARKS which is what she is trying to IMPLY by her little, I told congress thanks but no thanks....she FAILED to say Alaska TOOK the earmark/pork money ANYWAY.....the $452 earmarked millions set aside for the 2 bridges.....

if you can't see this, I don't know what else to say....???

Has Obama EVER implied that he was against earmarks?

Gees, i am not even an obama supporter, but this issue with Palin on the bridge to no where is clear as daylight....she DOES believe in PORK given to her state, and she IS implying that this is not the case with her little diatribe about saying thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere....which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

[Yurt]

yes, Alaska got their $452 million in earmark money of ours....

near all of the Senate voting in favor of such does NOT in any way excuse the lie being told.

She is not AGAINST EARMARKS which is what she is trying to IMPLY by her little, I told congress thanks but no thanks....she FAILED to say Alaska TOOK the earmark/pork money ANYWAY.....the $452 earmarked millions set aside for the 2 bridges.....

if you can't see this, I don't know what else to say....???

Has Obama EVER implied that he was against earmarks?

Gees, i am not even an obama supporter, but this issue with Palin on the bridge to no where is clear as daylight....she DOES believe in PORK given to her state, and she IS implying that this is not the case with her little diatribe about saying thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere....which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

obama:

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense

yet he votes for the bridge to nowhere...

[manu1959]

obama:

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense

yet he votes for the bridge to nowhere...


and gets a 100 million in earmarks for his state so far this year....

[Joe Steel]

Then why doesn't Joe Steel stop posting siily, unsubstantiated gossip? He's been caught many times. :poke:

Got any evidence?

[-Cp]

yes, Alaska got their $452 million in earmark money of ours....

near all of the Senate voting in favor of such does NOT in any way excuse the lie being told.

She is not AGAINST EARMARKS which is what she is trying to IMPLY by her little, I told congress thanks but no thanks....she FAILED to say Alaska TOOK the earmark/pork money ANYWAY.....the $452 earmarked millions set aside for the 2 bridges.....

if you can't see this, I don't know what else to say....???

Has Obama EVER implied that he was against earmarks?

Gees, i am not even an obama supporter, but this issue with Palin on the bridge to no where is clear as daylight....she DOES believe in PORK given to her state, and she IS implying that this is not the case with her little diatribe about saying thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere....which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Have any evidence to back-up these claims?

[JohnDoe]

Have any evidence to back-up these claims?

Which claim and what kind of back up? Alaska Got the money for the don young bridge $229 million, and the ted stevens bridge to nowhere $223 million....

This was the compromise that Ted stevens worked out, he wouldn't earmark the money for the bridge to nowhere, but he would STILL EARMARK the money for Alaska....to use as they please. They took the money, Alaska got the money anyway and even MORE, because their total earmarks for that year were $750,000,000.....


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGF5FPI7N1.DTL

The money -- championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful head of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- was earmarked to help construct a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island in the Alaskan Inland Passage in the southeastern corner of the state. A ferry boat now provides transportation between the two points.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate decided to drop the project after it was derided by critics as "pork-barrel spending" on "the bridge to nowhere."

They also decided to ax $229 million for a bridge between Anchorage and the sparsely populated Knik area of Alaska. That span has been named "Don Young's Way" after Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped send federal dollars to the bridge.

Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.

Also, Palin as Mayor HIRED A LOBBYIST to get a Pork Barrel project from washington for her town of Wasilla....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/earmark.check/

According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has asked for about $450 million in federal money since she became governor...


Palin also got into the earmarking game early, before she became governor. According to state records and Taxpayers for Common Sense, she helped get about $27 million, some of which went to the small Alaskan town of Wasilla, during her second term as mayor there, from 1998 to 2002.

The watchdog group said one of the reasons was that she hired a lobbying firm run by a former staffer for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of Washington's most legendary earmarkers.


you ask and ye shall receive....

anything else you would like? :)

jd

[JohnDoe]

obama:

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense

yet he votes for the bridge to nowhere... In the first transportation bill the Bridge to nowhere was "tucked in to the 835 page bill" is what the newspaper article that I read said, which to me absolutely implies, it was tucked in there, so no one would notice it...in fact, no one did notice it from any state, until a watchdog group found it and pointed it out...then Colburn brought up an amendment to have ted stevens money go to Louisianna, and ted stevens said he would quit the Senate, walk out, if he did not get this money for his state....

I don't know the specific reason why with all the heat on to Stevens that near all senators in the Senate let Alaska get this earmarked money anyway...I just know that only 13 or maybe it was 15 senators voted against the transportaion Bill but the other 85 plus voted for it? To me, this either means Ted Stevens is someone to fear, due to his appropriation Chairmanship power, or they felt sorry for him cuz of his crying and threatening to quit, or all the Senators wanted their share of the pie that they requested so they could not rock the boat?

I really don't care because that is not what this thread was about, this thread says that Palin was against taking the bridge to no where money, but what she didn't say is that the State got the money anyway, the earmark money was not turned down by the state, it was taken by the state....in fact in that ONE particular YEAR Alaska got $750,000,000 million dollars in earmarks.

Since Palin has been governor, she has requested $450,000,000 in earmarks.

So when Palin uses the diatribe that she said Thanks but no thanks, to the earmark for the Bridge to nowhere, she failed to mention that the Earmarked money came to the state of Alaska regardless, and to me Yurt, this is very deceiving....

And I like her, but not this part of her stomping speech, because i find it untruthful.



jd

[manu1959]

you do know biden and obama voted to give her the money.....you do know obama has racked up 100 million in the past 8 months....


In the first transportation bill the Bridge to nowhere was "tucked in to the 835 page bill" is what the newspaper article that I read said, which to me absolutely implies, it was tucked in there, so no one would notice it...in fact, no one did notice it from any state, until a watchdog group found it and pointed it out...then Colburn brought up an amendment to have ted stevens money go to Louisianna, and ted stevens said he would quit the Senate, walk out, if he did not get this money for his state....

I don't know the specific reason why with all the heat on to Stevens that near all senators in the Senate let Alaska get this earmarked money anyway...I just know that only 13 or maybe it was 15 senators voted against the transportaion Bill but the other 85 plus voted for it? To me, this either means Ted Stevens is someone to fear, due to his appropriation Chairmanship power, or they felt sorry for him cuz of his crying and threatening to quit, or all the Senators wanted their share of the pie that they requested so they could not rock the boat?

I really don't care because that is not what this thread was about, this thread says that Palin was against taking the bridge to no where money, but what she didn't say is that the State got the money anyway, the earmark money was not turned down by the state, it was taken by the state....in fact in that ONE particular YEAR Alaska got $750,000,000 million dollars in earmarks.

Since Palin has been governor, she has requested $450,000,000 in earmarks.

So when Palin uses the diatribe that she said Thanks but no thanks, to the earmark for the Bridge to nowhere, she failed to mention that the Earmarked money came to the state of Alaska regardless, and to me Yurt, this is very deceiving....

And I like her, but not this part of her stomping speech, because i find it untruthful.



jd

[Yurt]

In the first transportation bill the Bridge to nowhere was "tucked in to the 835 page bill" is what the newspaper article that I read said, which to me absolutely implies, it was tucked in there, so no one would notice it...in fact, no one did notice it from any state, until a watchdog group found it and pointed it out...then Colburn brought up an amendment to have ted stevens money go to Louisianna, and ted stevens said he would quit the Senate, walk out, if he did not get this money for his state....

I don't know the specific reason why with all the heat on to Stevens that near all senators in the Senate let Alaska get this earmarked money anyway...I just know that only 13 or maybe it was 15 senators voted against the transportaion Bill but the other 85 plus voted for it? To me, this either means Ted Stevens is someone to fear, due to his appropriation Chairmanship power, or they felt sorry for him cuz of his crying and threatening to quit, or all the Senators wanted their share of the pie that they requested so they could not rock the boat?

I really don't care because that is not what this thread was about, this thread says that Palin was against taking the bridge to no where money, but what she didn't say is that the State got the money anyway, the earmark money was not turned down by the state, it was taken by the state....in fact in that ONE particular YEAR Alaska got $750,000,000 million dollars in earmarks.

Since Palin has been governor, she has requested $450,000,000 in earmarks.

So when Palin uses the diatribe that she said Thanks but no thanks, to the earmark for the Bridge to nowhere, she failed to mention that the Earmarked money came to the state of Alaska regardless, and to me Yurt, this is very deceiving....

And I like her, but not this part of her stomping speech, because i find it untruthful.



jd

so she told the truth, she was against the bridge as she said no money would go to those bridges.

obama has requested close to a billion dollars for ill during his reign.

[Immanuel]

Gees, i am not even an obama supporter, but this issue with Palin on the bridge to no where is clear as daylight....she DOES believe in PORK given to her state, and she IS implying that this is not the case with her little diatribe about saying thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere....which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not "pork" if it is spent on legitimate projects such as highway improvement. Isn't that correct? My understanding is pork represents useless government project secured by legislatures for the state.

http://www.iamericanspirit.com/politicaldictionary.html



pork-barrel - a "pork-barrel" project is a publically funded project promoted by a legislator to bring money and jobs to his or her own district. The "pork" is allocated not on the basis of need, merit or entitlement; it is solely the result of political patronage, the desire of legislators to promote the interests of their own district, and thereby build up their local support. In 1998, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that $10 billion in pork barrel projects was being allocated in that year's appropriations bills. Many of the projects McCain declared to have no valid national purpose were in the home states of senators who happened to sit on the Appropriations Committee.

So, in effect, despite the fact that the money still went to Alaska it may not have been "ear-marked" for pork barrel projects.

However, one thing I have always said about the government funding abortion clinics, but not funding abortion, is that if you give Planned Parenthood $1 and tell them you don't want them to use it on abortion, they will take that $1 and spend it on brochures for "safe sex" and take a different $1 that was allocated for the brochures and use it on providing abortions. The same principle applies here. If $452 million was given to Alaska designated for highway improvements, that would allow them to reallocate $452 million planned to be spent elsewhere and build the Bridge to Nowhere.

But wait... the Bridge to Nowhere was never built... was it?

Immie

[JohnDoe]

so she told the truth, she was against the bridge as she said no money would go to those bridges.

obama has requested close to a billion dollars for ill during his reign.

Obviously you are going to see this the way you like yurt.... ;)

obama is not the issue or topic of this thread.

She was absolutely for the bridge to nowhere, UNTIL congress decided to deny the money for the bridge....and the heat on stevens was getting too hot to handle...she's on record saying they would put in the bridge themselves without the fed earmark help....but getting all the earmark money, just allowed alaska to shift money from one column to another.

Taking the tax payers of the usa's money for their use in whatever they felt like using it for....just opened up the money for them to build the bridges.

And she is NOT against receiving earmarks for her state, which is WHAT she and mccain are implying with her touting she said, "Thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere"

...just a bunch of hogwash because she has requested $450 million in additional earmarks in just the 20 months she has been governor....so it is simply a lie that she and mccain are promoting about her being a maverick when it comes to earmarks.

I am not even against Earmarks, if they are disclosed by the senators that are requesting them, and the projects seem like they are absolutely necessary for the state requesting it and the state itself does not have the money to pay for it....then i am willing to give up my own tax money for them.

I have a problem with Alaska getting MORE EARMARK MONEY/capita than any other state in the united states, long before Palin even got there, because the Alaska gvt was running a surplus, yet they were still raping us of our tax monies through all the Earmarks Ted Stevens and Don young were putting in for their state.

Just in one year, 2005, the year of the two bridges to no where, Alaska took from us in earmarked money 3/4's of a BILLION DOLLARS....that's a bit TOOOOO much for anyone of us tax payers to swallow in my opinion....especially because of their own state's surplus.

I realize this is not all of Palin's doing. In fact, since ted stevens and Don Young have been under the microscope and under investigation earmarks from alaska has been going down....the $450 million requested by her is nearly cutting in half what they were getting in earmarks from us....she should get some credit for that as well.

But Please don't go around and imply that she said thanks but no thanks to the bridges, as if she is against taking our federal tax money for her state....they took the $452 million that was allocated for the two bridges anyway....so they took our money all the way to the bank in Alaska.

It's that simple....honesty is important to me.

jd

[JohnDoe]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not "pork" if it is spent on legitimate projects such as highway improvement. Isn't that correct? My understanding is pork represents useless government project secured by legislatures for the state.

http://www.iamericanspirit.com/politicaldictionary.html



So, in effect, despite the fact that the money still went to Alaska it may not have been "ear-marked" for pork barrel projects.

However, one thing I have always said about the government funding abortion clinics, but not funding abortion, is that if you give Planned Parenthood $1 and tell them you don't want them to use it on abortion, they will take that $1 and spend it on brochures for "safe sex" and take a different $1 that was allocated for the brochures and use it on providing abortions. The same principle applies here. If $452 million was given to Alaska designated for highway improvements, that would allow them to reallocate $452 million planned to be spent elsewhere and build the Bridge to Nowhere.

But wait... the Bridge to Nowhere was never built... was it?

Immie

Any earmark is considered and called Pork Barrel spending....

[Immanuel]

Any earmark is considered and called Pork Barrel spending....

Wrong... pork is needless spending. For instance, education or highway improvements are not considered pork. A pet project such as $3 million for projectors in a planetarium in a Senator's district is pork.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/21/politics/purehorserace/main2962372.shtml?source=search_story


Barack Obama has billed himself as the candidate least corrupted by Washington politics — but that doesn't mean he avoids the game entirely. Like just about every member of Congress, Obama, a senator representing Illinois, has pursued funding for specific projects — or earmarks — in federal spending bills. But unlike many of his colleagues, Obama has also made every one of his requests public on his Web site.

Obama's list, released today, doesn't offer anything too exciting, however. Perhaps the most unconventional request is also the first item on the list: $3 million for the Adler Planetarium to replace projector equipment.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

Then why doesn't Joe Steel stop posting siily, unsubstantiated gossip? He's been caught many times. :poke:

Because it's true. Sarah Palin was for the 'bridge to nowhere' before she was against it. It is substantiated by multiple, independent sources. IT really suck for conservatives that reality has a liberal bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486063/

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014466.php

[Immanuel]

Because it's true. Sarah Palin was for the 'bridge to nowhere' before she was against it. It is substantiated by multiple, independent sources. IT really suck for conservatives that reality has a liberal bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486063/

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014466.php

What's funny is how for Conservatives, "I actually voted for it, before I voted against it." was taboo for Kerry and okay for Palin; yet for Liberals like yourself, the exact reverse.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Wrong... pork is needless spending. For instance, education or highway improvements are not considered pork. A pet project such as $3 million for projectors in a planetarium in a Senator's district is pork.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/21/politics/purehorserace/main2962372.shtml?source=search_story



Immie
EARMARKS are considered pork because they are hidden projects in bills that individual senators add....and none of these projects get any vetting or debating on the floor from congress/the Senate...earmarks are just "added" to existing bills with no discussion or vetting.

All earmarks are considered pork, because they are never debated on the floor of the senate or House....they are perks or handouts, to get the senators to vote for the main Bill.

Here is the Definition of the group that puts out the Pork Book each year:

The 375 projects, totaling $3.4 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all of the items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.

[Immanuel]

EARMARKS are considered pork because they are hidden projects in bills that individual senators add....and none of these projects get any vetting or debating on the floor from congress/the Senate...earmarks are just "added" to existing bills with no discussion or vetting.

All earmarks are considered pork, because they are never debated on the floor of the senate or House....they are perks or handouts, to get the senators to vote for the main Bill.

Here is the Definition of the group that puts out the Pork Book each year:

The 375 projects, totaling $3.4 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all of the items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.


Are you going to continue to play semantic games? If so, game over.

It is not pork if the funding is intended to go to federal projects such as education or highway improvements, those projects are generally specifically authorized as far as I know.

Also, that is, the definition of pork barrel spending not "earmarks". You defined pork barrel spending yet insinuated that it is earmarked spending.

http://www.iamericanspirit.com/politicaldictionary.html


earmarked - to set aside for a special purpose, as when in a budget, funds are earmarked for certain projects.

Note: the definition of "pork barrel" spending I gave earlier and its similarity to your definition.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Are you going to continue to play semantic games? If so, game over.

It is not pork if the funding is intended to go to federal projects such as education or highway improvements, those projects are generally specifically authorized as far as I know.

Also, that is, the definition of pork barrel spending not "earmarks". You defined pork barrel spending yet insinuated that it is earmarked spending.

http://www.iamericanspirit.com/politicaldictionary.html



Note: the definition of "pork barrel" spending I gave earlier and its similarity to your definition.

Immie

believe what you wish, but earmarks =pork barrel spending.

earmarks are not debated on the floor or one of the 7 criteria listed above.

Spending in education and the highway bills are allocated and dicussed and debated on the floors of congress, earmarks added to these bills are not.

[Immanuel]

In other words, they don't debate things like education and highway improvement spending. They simply pass the budget with those items in it. Pork barrel spending is for special projects requested by Senators and Congressmen for their special interests.

That does not mean that a pork project cannot be earmarked, but not all earmarked spending is pork. Understand?

That is why I said,

So, in effect, despite the fact that the money still went to Alaska it MAY not have been "ear-marked" for pork barrel projects.

Immie

[Immanuel]

believe what you wish, but earmarks =pork barrel spending.

earmarks are not debated on the floor or one of the 7 criteria listed above.

Spending in education and the highway bills are allocated and dicussed and debated on the floors of congress, earmarks added to these bills are not.

Believe what you wish, but I have provided two links that once again prove you are wrong.

Immie