Earmarks and Fiscally Responsible Republicans

[moderate democrat]

I think it is heart warming to see how the republican party really distances itself from the entire earmark issue. You guys would NEVER load up a budget bill with porky earmarks at a time of economic uncertainty! It just is not the kind of party you are! Oh... I forgot...this budget bill was drafted during the LAST administration before you all got fiscal religion. my bad. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html

[Yurt]

(yawn)...you know that we did not support that and dumbass, why do you think the republicans took a hit at the polls? because the conservatives are sick and tired of their spending habits.

but do continue to laugh, it merely shows you are party over country :poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh... I forgot...this budget bill was drafted during the LAST administration before you all got fiscal religion. my bad.

this bill was drafted by the Democratically controlled Congress, not by the administration....a Congress that vowed to eliminate earmarks......it will be signed by Obama, not Bush.....an Obama who likewise vowed to veto a budget that included earmarks......

I Hope there's a Change before it gets signed.....

[moderate democrat]

this bill was drafted by the Democratically controlled Congress, not by the administration....a Congress that vowed to eliminate earmarks......it will be signed by Obama, not Bush.....an Obama who likewise vowed to veto a budget that included earmarks......

I Hope there's a Change before it gets signed.....

the earmarks are inserted by individual legislators - not the "democratically controlled Congress"...and republicans did way more than their fair share. interesting, however, that the amount of earmarks is markedly less than in the past. hmmmmm.

[PostmodernProphet]

the earmarks are inserted by individual legislators - not the "democratically controlled Congress"...and republicans did way more than their fair share. interesting, however, that the amount of earmarks is markedly less than in the past. hmmmmm.

the earmarks were not deleted by the democratically controlled Congress that promised to.....and don't try to tell me that 9000 earmarks is anything less than the past......and that doesn't even count the earmarks in the stimulus package the week before....

[5stringJeff]

Both parties are permanently stained with the earmark issue.

[Kathianne]

Both parties are permanently stained with the earmark issue.

Couldn't agree more. At the same time, which party's members do you hear in agreement with Libertarians? C'mon, don't be shy.

[JackDaniels]

I think it is heart warming to see how the republican party really distances itself from the entire earmark issue. You guys would NEVER load up a budget bill with porky earmarks at a time of economic uncertainty! It just is not the kind of party you are! Oh... I forgot...this budget bill was drafted during the LAST administration before you all got fiscal religion. my bad. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html

It's a shame that the Republican Party has given ammo to the Democrats with their big spending ways. Obama can look into the camera and say things like "Who are they to call me a big spender" and be entirely accurate. Spending under the first six years of the Bush Administration, when Republicans held both houses of the legislature, spending rose dramatically. Under no intelligent, objective circumstances did Republicans practice spending restraint or limited government. Republicans from 2001-2007 are responsible for one of the largest increases in the size, scope and power of the federal government in history.

It's a damn shame -- Republicans used be the party of small government. However, those days are long gone.

The Cato institute did a great service in detailing the top "pork-getters" from the recent omnibus spending bill. They are:

SENATOR EARMARK $$
Byrd (D-WV) $122,804,900
Shelby (R-AL) $114,484,250
Bond (R-MO) $85,691,491
Feinstein (D-CA) $76,899,425
Cochran (R-MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (R-AK) $74,000,750
Harkin (D-IA) $66,860,000
Inhofe (R-OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (R-KY) $51,186,000
Inouye (D-HI) $46,380,205
If you are a Republican, that list should make you sick.

[5stringJeff]

Couldn't agree more. At the same time, which party's members do you hear in agreement with Libertarians? C'mon, don't be shy.

Well, Ron Paul (R-TX) is obviously the libertarian poster-boy. However, in another thread, I gave Obama props for his more lenient stance on marijuana. And civil libertarians have traditionally supported Democrats. But I'm not convinced that the GOP has really "got religion" on small government/tax cuts. We witnessed how much they attempted to shrink government when they controlled the show from 2001-2006: none.

[JackDaniels]

Well, Ron Paul (R-TX) is obviously the libertarian poster-boy. However, in another thread, I gave Obama props for his more lenient stance on marijuana. And civil libertarians have traditionally supported Democrats. But I'm not convinced that the GOP has really "got religion" on small government/tax cuts. We witnessed how much they attempted to shrink government when they controlled the show from 2001-2006: none.

Exactly. In fact, even an "attempt" to shrink would have been a start. From January 20, 2001, an exponential increase in government occurred. From the start, the only "attempt" made was to increase government, and it succeeded.

[sgtdmski]

As a Conservative and a Republican normally I am opposed to earmarks. However as an Alaskan, I see the need for them sometimes. I live in one of the few states where there is rather limited private ownership of the land.

The Federal Government Controls and owns 66% of all land in Alaska. If we as the citizens of the state wish to drill for oil in land that is within our state, in many areas we need the approval of the other 533 members of the US Congress.

We have been promised the right to drill in the ANWR since 1978, and guess what we are still waiting.

There is less that 1% of private land ownership in the state. The rest of the land belongs to the Federal Government, the state government and the Native corporations.

Like many of the Alaskans, I consider the earmarks our state recieves as rent. Year in and year out we lead the top of the board for earmarks per capita, however, if you change that to earmarks per acre of federally owned land, you would see that we are only making around $0.67 per acre.

dmk

[moderate democrat]

As a Conservative and a Republican normally I am opposed to earmarks. However as an Alaskan, I see the need for them sometimes. I live in one of the few states where there is rather limited private ownership of the land.

The Federal Government Controls and owns 66% of all land in Alaska. If we as the citizens of the state wish to drill for oil in land that is within our state, in many areas we need the approval of the other 533 members of the US Congress.

We have been promised the right to drill in the ANWR since 1978, and guess what we are still waiting.

There is less that 1% of private land ownership in the state. The rest of the land belongs to the Federal Government, the state government and the Native corporations.

Like many of the Alaskans, I consider the earmarks our state recieves as rent. Year in and year out we lead the top of the board for earmarks per capita, however, if you change that to earmarks per acre of federally owned land, you would see that we are only making around $0.67 per acre.

dmk

thank you for your well reasoned response. Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not necessarily "evil" or even "wasteful".

[PostmodernProphet]

thank you for your well reasoned response. Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not necessarily "evil" or even "wasteful".

of course not.....if they are being done by the Democrats they are stimulus......

[moderate democrat]

of course not.....if they are being done by the Democrats they are stimulus......

or republicans, too!

remember...the OP shows that it is the republicans in congress who have the disproportionate share of the earmarks in this budget.

[PostmodernProphet]

or republicans, too!

remember...the OP shows that it is the republicans in congress who have the disproportionate share of the earmarks in this budget.

well I demand that your boy keep his promise and veto BOTH the Republicans and Democrats earmarks......

[moderate democrat]

well I demand that your boy keep his promise and veto BOTH the Republicans and Democrats earmarks......

here's a plan for you...demand in one hand and defecate in the other.... then tell me which one fills up faster.

Earmarks are not necessarily bad policy. that's a fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

here's a plan for you...demand in one hand and defecate in the other.... then tell me which one fills up faster.

Earmarks are not necessarily bad policy. that's a fact.

no, its not a fact....it's a Democrat spinning his way out of responsibility for his candidates promises......I don't need to defecate to fill my hand with shit, I can simply grab onto the Obama train....

[Jagger]

I live in one of the few states where there is rather limited private ownership of the land.
That's because Alaskan Republicans are the new Socialists, dude. Now, explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.

[Silver]

thank you for your well reasoned response. Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not necessarily "evil" or even "wasteful".

Whether or not they are evil or wasteful is not the point in this budget....

The simple fact Republicans have been trying to make is ...."they don't belong in the "stimulus bill"..........."

And...if the right can't stop the pork they would have to be insane not to demand their share of the pork for their followers and their states.....

To allow the Democrats to loot the treasury all alone would be cutting off your nose to spite your face as my Mama would say....:salute:

[moderate democrat]

Whether or not they are evil or wasteful is not the point in this budget....

The simple fact Republicans have been trying to make is ...."they don't belong in the "stimulus bill"..........."

And...if the right can't stop the pork they would have to be insane not to demand their share of the pork for their followers and their states.....

To allow the Democrats to loot the treasury all alone would be cutting off your nose to spite your face as my Mama would say....:salute:

the earmarks in question are not in the stimulus bill, but rather in the budget bill.

So you are saying that the republicans are not as "principled" as you and your ilk would otherwise have us believe. That's fine. Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not evil. They are a means of distributing federal budget dollars to the states and districts.

[PostmodernProphet]

the earmarks in question are not in the stimulus bill, but rather in the budget bill.

??....why?....because you aren't questioning the earmarks in the stimulus bill?......I question them all.....



So you are saying that the republicans are not as "principled" as you and your ilk would otherwise have us believe. That's fine. Earmarks, in and of themselves, are not evil. They are a means of distributing federal budget dollars to the states and districts.

they are a "means" of doing so without subjecting them to scrutiny....if there was a legitimate need to distribute those funds they would be examined and voted on....earmarks have only one purpose....obtaining the votes of Congressman who otherwise would not support an item of legislation.......they ARE, in and of themselves, evil.....

[moderate democrat]

??....why?....because you aren't questioning the earmarks in the stimulus bill?......I question them all.....



they are a "means" of doing so without subjecting them to scrutiny....if there was a legitimate need to distribute those funds they would be examined and voted on....earmarks have only one purpose....obtaining the votes of Congressman who otherwise would not support an item of legislation.......they ARE, in and of themselves, evil.....

the process of marshalling support for public policy is EVIL?

really?

[PostmodernProphet]

the process of marshalling support for public policy is EVIL?

really?

you must be a liberal....you think buying votes is "marshalling support".......yes, in that context "marshalling support" is evil......

[moderate democrat]

you must be a liberal....you think buying votes is "marshalling support".......yes, in that context "marshalling support" is evil......

your naivite about government is staggering

[PostmodernProphet]

the problem isn't my naivete, it's your tolerance.....

[moderate democrat]

the problem isn't my naivete, it's your tolerance.....

thanks for your naive opinion.

[MtnBiker]

I want Obama to fail, I want the economy to fail, I want the banks to collapse and I want the stock market to crash.

--Rush Limbaugh (Leader of the Republican Party)


Your fantasy quote is completely meaningless unless you are able to provide a creditable link.

[Jagger]

Your fantasy quote is completely meaningless unless you are able to provide a creditable link.

You bear the burden to prove it's not true.

[Yurt]

You bear the burden to prove it's not true.

thats what i thought, you lied...

got it

[MtnBiker]

You bear the burden to prove it's not true.

You made the post, it is your responsibility.

Until you can provide a creditalbe link the post will be removed.

[PostmodernProphet]

You bear the burden to prove it's not true.

???....what the fuck?......

[Yurt]

???....what the fuck?......

funny isn't it...

obama is a secret kgb mole

now its up to jagger to prove that its not true

[Jagger]

You made the post, it is your responsibility.

Until you can provide a creditalbe link the post will be removed.

I just heard him say it on his radio show today. I will link to a podcast as soon as it's available.

[DannyR]

I just heard him say it on his radio show today. I will link to a podcast as soon as it's available.if he said it, it was stated sarcastically. He's on record as saying pretty much the exact opposite elsewhere:


“Why in the world would I want the economy to fail and destroy everything I am produced …I want just the opposite…I want to get out of this.”

“No one” is for economic collapse, Limbaugh said on his show this morning, “except maybe Obama.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2198320/posts?page=1

[MtnBiker]

I just heard him say it on his radio show today. I will link to a podcast as soon as it's available.

no link yet, huh

[Jagger]

no link yet, huh

Think of it as rough justice.

[Yurt]

Think of it as rough justice.

that is not the definition for....lying

[Jagger]

Did you know that it was President Ronald Reagan who signed into law the bill that established the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC takes money from wealthy people and gives it to those who aren't. Reagan was actually a staunch socialist, who believed strongly in income redistribution.

[PostmodernProphet]

Did you know that it was President Ronald Reagan who signed into law the bill that established the Earned Income Tax Credit.

No, the EITC was established in 1975......

[Kathianne]

No, the EITC was established in 1975......

Should have known.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PostmodernProphet again.

[Yurt]

that is not the definition for....lying


Did you know that it was President Ronald Reagan who signed into law the bill that established the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC takes money from wealthy people and gives it to those who aren't. Reagan was actually a staunch socialist, who believed strongly in income redistribution.


No, the EITC was established in 1975......

:laugh2:

[DannyR]

No, the EITC was established in 1975......Ford established the EITC, but Reagan did reenact and greatly expanded the law in 1986. He certainly wasn't against the idea.

[PostmodernProphet]

Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the more widely-publicized Reagan EIC expansion of 1986. The EIC was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001 regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

The Earned Income Tax Credit has been credited with reforming the welfare system because it rewards the working poor (you need to have an income and owe taxes before you benefit from it) and it rewards familes that stay together (married couples benefit more than single parent familes).......

the EITC needs to be distinguished from the so called "refundable" tax credits that are payable to persons who pay no taxes.....

http://www.cbpp.org/311eitc.htm

[sgtdmski]

That's because Alaskan Republicans are the new Socialists, dude. Now, explain how Reaganomics led to 86 months of continuous economic expansion.

How do you figure that??? It is the Federal Government that owns the land, hence according to your statement it is the Federal Government is the socialist.

I will answer your Reaganomics question in the post rather than here.

dmk

[Jagger]

Republicans are all Socialists.

[Jagger]

Ford established the EITC, but Reagan did reenact and greatly expanded the law in 1986. He certainly wasn't against the idea.

Ford and Reagan were staunch Socialists.

[Jagger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

The Earned Income Tax Credit has been credited with reforming the welfare system because it rewards the working poor (you need to have an income and owe taxes before you benefit from it) and it rewards familes that stay together (married couples benefit more than single parent familes).......

the EITC needs to be distinguished from the so called "refundable" tax credits that are payable to persons who pay no taxes.....

http://www.cbpp.org/311eitc.htm

The EITC is social engineering. Republicans are Socialists.

[PostmodernProphet]

Republicans are all Socialists.

I am puzzled how you think Democrats are an improvement over Republican "socialism"......

[Jagger]

Democrats are an improvement over Republican "socialism"...... I agree, Democrats govern our great Democratic Socialist Republic much better than Republicans do.

[GW in Ohio]

this bill was drafted by the Democratically controlled Congress, not by the administration....a Congress that vowed to eliminate earmarks......it will be signed by Obama, not Bush.....an Obama who likewise vowed to veto a budget that included earmarks......

I Hope there's a Change before it gets signed.....


This is an omnibus bill. It had its origin in 2008, before the elections.
The earmarks account for 1% to 2% of the expenditures in the bill. By Washington standards, that's trivial.
40% of the earmarks were put in by Republicans, like Mitch McConnell.
Earmarks are not by definition bad. Many are for useful projects, e.g., a bridge between two busy ports.

[PostmodernProphet]

I agree, Democrats govern our great Democratic Socialist Republic much better than Republicans do.

my, that was childish.....

[PostmodernProphet]

This is an omnibus bill. It had its origin in 2008, before the elections.
The earmarks account for 1% to 2% of the expenditures in the bill. By Washington standards, that's trivial.
40% of the earmarks were put in by Republicans, like Mitch McConnell.
Earmarks are not by definition bad. Many are for useful projects, e.g., a bridge between two busy ports.


none of which change the fact that it was drafted by the Democrats in Congress, will be signed by a Democrat president, both of whom were elected on the promise that it wouldn't happen.....

[GW in Ohio]

none of which change the fact that it was drafted by the Democrats in Congress, will be signed by a Democrat president, both of whom were elected on the promise that it wouldn't happen.....

If you think Congress is ever going to pass an omnibus fiscal stimulus bill involving almost $1 trillion without earmarks, then you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Besides, you keep wanting to "blame" Democrats for the 1-2% of earmarks when I've already told you that Republicans are responsible for 40% of the earmarks. I've also already told you that earmarks are not by definition bad. It's only when they underwrite wasteful spending that they are bad.

But you don't care whether this bill is successful or not. You just want to try and discredit Obama and the Democrats.

[Jagger]

The Economic Recovery Act of 2009 does not contain any earmarks.

[PostmodernProphet]

If you think Congress is ever going to pass an omnibus fiscal stimulus bill involving almost $1 trillion without earmarks, then you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.


you will believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and a Bipartisan Democrat......

[PostmodernProphet]

Besides, you keep wanting to "blame" Democrats for the 1-2% of earmarks when I've already told you that Republicans are responsible for 40% of the earmarks.

ah, skillful misdirection there.....are we supposed to erroneously conclude from that sentence that Republicans submitted twenty times more earmarks than Democrats, instead of two thirds as many as Democrats?......

[PostmodernProphet]

But you don't care whether this bill is successful or not.
not true....I very sincerely want it to fail.....

[Jagger]

I did not post this post...

[Kathianne]

Get a rope.

and string you up? 50+1!

[Jagger]

and string you up? 50+1!

Love is strong and you're so sweet
You make me hard you make me weak
Love is strong and you're so sweet
And some day, babe we got to meet

[Kathianne]

Love is strong and you're so sweet
You make me hard you make me weak
Love is strong and you're so sweet
And some day, babe we got to meet

Only for me to slap some sense into you! :coffee:

[Yurt]

Love is strong and you're so sweet
You make me hard you make me weak
Love is strong and you're so sweet
And some day, babe we got to meet

how was love created?

[Jagger]

Only for me to slap some sense into you! :coffee:

A glimpse of you was all it took
A strangers glance it got me hooked
And I followed you across the stars
I looked for you in seedy bars

[PostmodernProphet]

I looked for you in seedy bars

"lookin' for love....in all the wrong places"......

[Kathianne]

A glimpse of you was all it took
A strangers glance it got me hooked
And I followed you across the stars
I looked for you in seedy bars

and you wonder why you didn't find me? Try the cosmos bars, check with PB.

[Jagger]

and you wonder why you didn't find me? Try the cosmos bars, check with PB.

What are you scared of, baby
Its more than just a dream
I need some time
We make a beautiful team

[Kathianne]

What are you scared of, baby
Its more than just a dream
I need some time
We make a beautiful team

:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

Earmarks will never go away and there is no such thing as a "fiscally responsible republican".

Prove me wrong.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Earmarks will never go away and there is no such thing as a "fiscally responsible republican".

Prove me wrong.

/shrugs.....I'm a fiscally responsible republican.....

[moderate democrat]

/shrugs.....I'm a fiscally responsible republican.....


did you vote for George W. Bush in 2004?

[PostmodernProphet]

did you vote for George W. Bush in 2004?

of course.....the alternative would have been Kerry, who was far less fiscally conservative.....

[Psychoblues]

And I am a fiscally responsible Democrat. So fuckin' what?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!



/shrugs.....I'm a fiscally responsible republican.....

Under what kind of an administration, Democrat or Republican, did we last enjoy a balanced national budget?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!

/shrugs,,,,,,,,,pimp is still an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[moderate democrat]

of course.....the alternative would have been Kerry, who was far less fiscally conservative.....

in 2004, did you ever mount any sort of opposition to George W. Bush's second term? Did you ever urge your party to run someone fiscally responsible against Bush in a primary fight that year?

[Psychoblues]

Holy Moly!!!!!!!!!! I missed this one, Kat and Jagger!!!!!!!!!!!!!


and you wonder why you didn't find me? Try the cosmos bars, check with PB.

I'd offer you a tit
If you'd stop being such a twit
And I never meant you no harm

Could I get you a bit
of cool jamm and some of it
The comfort of me and my right arm?!?!?!?!?!????!?

Carry on, Kat, and the jimmy jammer, jagger!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kat and I have waltzed across Texas, Tennessee and a few other states we'd both rather forget about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Set 'em up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Under what kind of an administration, Democrat or Republican, did we last enjoy a balanced national budget?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!


the only time in my lifetime that we even got close was during that period when Gingrich kept Clinton from being fiscally irresponsible.....

[PostmodernProphet]

in 2004, did you ever mount any sort of opposition to George W. Bush's second term? Did you ever urge your party to run someone fiscally responsible against Bush in a primary fight that year?

actually, I was busy urging people to get rid of the Democrats in Congress.....don't bother trying to deflect this from the fact that Democrats ALWAYS spend more than Republicans......that hasn't changed in the last fifty years......

[Psychoblues]

The only balanced budget that has ever been achieved in the last 50 years was formulated and passed under a Democratic administration, pimp.



actually, I was busy urging people to get rid of the Democrats in Congress.....don't bother trying to deflect this from the fact that Democrats ALWAYS spend more than Republicans......that hasn't changed in the last fifty years......

Are you really that fuckin' stupid and blinded by the reich, pimp?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[moderate democrat]

actually, I was busy urging people to get rid of the Democrats in Congress.....don't bother trying to deflect this from the fact that Democrats ALWAYS spend more than Republicans......that hasn't changed in the last fifty years......

so...you claim to be a "fiscally responsible republican" but take no steps whatsoever to even attempt to get your party to run fiscally responsible candidates.

I understand completely.

that is sort of like saying that you are opposed to violence against women but then blithely turning your back on the woman getting gang banged on the pool table and heading to the bar to get another Budweiser

[Psychoblues]

?




so...you claim to be a "fiscally responsible republican" but take no steps whatsoever to even attempt to get your party to run fiscally responsible candidates.

I understand completely.

that is sort of like saying that you are opposed to violence against women but then blithely turning your back on the woman getting gang banged on the pool table and heading to the bar to get another Budweiser

Relevance, please?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[moderate democrat]

?





Relevance, please?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

he claims to be a fiscally responsible republican yet takes ZERO steps to even attempt to get his party to nominate fiscally responsible republicans. He is clearly willing to vote for anyone as long as they are a republican, regardless of their level of fiscal responsibility... and all the while calling the likes of you and me party hacks!:lol:

[Psychoblues]

My bad!!!!!!!!!!!!



he claims to be a fiscally responsible republican yet takes ZERO steps to even attempt to get his party to nominate fiscally responsible republicans. He is clearly willing to vote for anyone as long as they are a republican, regardless of their level of fiscal responsibility... and all the while calling the likes of you and me party hacks!:lol:

Dig it!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Jagger]

Sean Hannity is misrepresenting President Obama's remarks to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

Sean Hannity claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." Hannity then aired a clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, falsely suggesting that Obama was referring to banning all earmarks in general.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903080002?f=h_latest

[Psychoblues]

The common silliness of the loser Republicans is finally catching up with them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Sean Hannity is misrepresenting President Obama's remarks to falsely claim he made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks"

Sean Hannity claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks." Hannity then aired a clip of Obama stating his desire to "ban all earmarks" from the economic recovery package, falsely suggesting that Obama was referring to banning all earmarks in general.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903080002?f=h_latest

It's about time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Jagger]

By focusing on earmarks -- less than 2 percent of spending bill -- media allow bill's opponents to dictate debate

Numerous media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the earmarks contained in the pending omnibus appropriations bill, even though, according to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the total spending in the bill.

In many instances, the media have allowed attacks by Sen. John McCain and other opponents of the omnibus bill to dominate their coverage of the legislation -- at times themselves characterizing the bill as laden with "pork."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903100001?f=i_latest

[PostmodernProphet]

The only balanced budget that has ever been achieved in the last 50 years was formulated and passed under a Democratic administration, pimp.


by a Republican Congress, fuck.....

[PostmodernProphet]

that is sort of like saying that you are opposed to violence against women but then blithely turning your back on the woman getting gang banged on the pool table and heading to the bar to get another Budweiser
this from one of the guys standing in line at the pool table......

[PostmodernProphet]

he claims to be a fiscally responsible republican yet takes ZERO steps to even attempt to get his party to nominate fiscally responsible republicans. He is clearly willing to vote for anyone as long as they are a republican, regardless of their level of fiscal responsibility... and all the while calling the likes of you and me party hacks!:lol:

deflection, since you're from the party that intentionally promotes fiscal irresponsibility....

[moderate democrat]

deflection, since you're from the party that intentionally promotes fiscal irresponsibility....


people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

if you were a fiscally responsible republican as you claim, you'd do something to try to elect fiscally responsible republicans. You have all but admitted that you did nothing to replace fiscally irresponsible Dubya on your ticket in 2004... seems to me that you intentionally promoted fiscal irresponsibility yourself.

[Jagger]

people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

if you were a fiscally responsible republican as you claim, you'd do something to try to elect fiscally responsible republicans. You have all but admitted that you did nothing to replace fiscally irresponsible Dubya on your ticket in 2004... seems to me that you intentionally promoted fiscal irresponsibility yourself.

Republicans are socialists who believe in deficit spending and increasing taxes on the rich.

[Trigg]

republicans are socialists who believe in deficit spending and increasing taxes on the rich.



wrong party

[Jagger]

Which party was in power in 2001 when Congress passed the bill that President Bush signed that will increase the tax rate on taxable individual income over $200,000, starting in 2011?

[Yurt]

Republicans are socialists who believe in deficit spending and increasing taxes on the rich.

why do you hate white people?

[PostmodernProphet]

people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

if you were a fiscally responsible republican as you claim, you'd do something to try to elect fiscally responsible republicans. You have all but admitted that you did nothing to replace fiscally irresponsible Dubya on your ticket in 2004... seems to me that you intentionally promoted fiscal irresponsibility yourself.

don't talk to me about glass houses.....you deliberately support candidates who are the antithesis of fiscally responsible and revel in it.....

[Yurt]

don't talk to me about glass houses.....you deliberately support candidates who are the antithesis of fiscally responsible and revel in it.....

well, with glass houses you do have a better view. glass houses, unless you have modern windows, are not very energy efficient. glass houses....

[moderate democrat]

don't talk to me about glass houses.....you deliberately support candidates who are the antithesis of fiscally responsible and revel in it.....

I disagree, but in any case, I certainly have never held myself up as a "fiscally responsible democrat". If you can't wear the name, PMP, don't claim it.

[PostmodernProphet]

I disagree, but in any case, I certainly have never held myself up as a "fiscally responsible democrat". If you can't wear the name, PMP, don't claim it.

I'm glad you admit no Democrat could wear the name.....

[Yurt]

I'm glad you admit no Democrat could wear the name.....


MD: I certainly have never held myself up as a "fiscally responsible democrat"

:lol:

nice pmp....you got him to admit he is not a fiscally responsible voter, er democrat...that he doesn't care.... nice, job well done.

[moderate democrat]

I'm glad you admit no Democrat could wear the name.....

now, maybe you'll admit that if you are, in fact, a "fiscally responsible republican" that that name is totally meaningless because you do absolutely diddlysquat to advance your party's fiscal responsibility, preferring, instead, to just vote for whoever the hell you party nominates and take no role, other than blathering on an internet message board, in helping shape your party's future...

but admitting that would take a level of maturity and integrity we both know you ain't got.:lol:

[Jagger]

Faced with looming deficits, President Ronald Reagan, a Socialist Republican, raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years. Despite the fact that such increases were supposedly anathema to conservatives, Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times between 1982-84.

[Yurt]

Faced with looming deficits, President Ronald Reagan, a Socialist Republican, raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years. Despite the fact that such increases were supposedly anathema to conservatives, Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times between 1982-84.

link...

[Mr. P]

Faced with looming deficits, President Ronald Reagan, a Socialist Republican, raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years. Despite the fact that such increases were supposedly anathema to conservatives, Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times between 1982-84.

Hey, Dude!

Pssst. A little secret for those like you who ignore facts.


The economic benefits of ERTA (INCOME TAX REDUCTION) were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

[PostmodernProphet]

now, maybe you'll admit that if you are, in fact, a "fiscally responsible republican" that that name is totally meaningless because you do absolutely diddlysquat to advance your party's fiscal responsibility, preferring, instead, to just vote for whoever the hell you party nominates and take no role, other than blathering on an internet message board, in helping shape your party's future...

but admitting that would take a level of maturity and integrity we both know you ain't got.:lol:

not at all....it didn't take much to recognize that Bush beat Kerry by miles with respect to fiscal responsibility, as he did Gore.....and that McCain had far more fiscal responsibility than Obama....thus, when it comes time to hang things in the balance, it sucks to be you......

[moderate democrat]

not at all....it didn't take much to recognize that Bush beat Kerry by miles with respect to fiscal responsibility, as he did Gore.....and that McCain had far more fiscal responsibility than Obama....thus, when it comes time to hang things in the balance, it sucks to be you......

you avoid the point - why am I not surprised? If you were, in fact, a "fiscally responsible republican" in 2004, why were you not demanding that your party put up some other, more fiscally responsible candidate to run against George Bush in 2004? The answer, clearly, is that you are a do-nothing fiscally reponsible republican who is quite content to vote for fiscally irresponsible republicans rather than take any proactive steps to nominate someone WITH the responsibility you claim to have.

[DannyR]

it didn't take much to recognize that Bush beat Kerry by miles with respect to fiscal responsibilityKerry might have proposed more things than Bush during the election, but fiscal responsibility is not a function of just one person. Congress plays a roll too.

I have no doubt that Kerry as President, with a republican congress at the time, would have been far more fiscally responsible than Bush was, if only because Kerry would veto republican spending, and republican Congress would just ignore a Kerry budget.

A mixed government is almost always the best for our country. I'm hoping 2010 puts a Republican congress back in power.

[DannyR]

link...discussed this elsewhere. Yes Reagan raised taxes. He also lowered them. Complete list of both are attached to my post here:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=355235&postcount=22

[PostmodernProphet]

you avoid the point - why am I not surprised? If you were, in fact, a "fiscally responsible republican" in 2004, why were you not demanding that your party put up some other, more fiscally responsible candidate to run against George Bush in 2004? The answer, clearly, is that you are a do-nothing fiscally reponsible republican who is quite content to vote for fiscally irresponsible republicans rather than take any proactive steps to nominate someone WITH the responsibility you claim to have.

no, YOU avoid the point....what we had in Bush WAS fiscally responsible, compared to the typical Democratic alternative....I was content to vote for Bush.....but you weren't content until you could vote for someone far worse.....so don't give me some sob story about how I wasn't fiscally responsible......you sound like some skid-row drunk criticizing a sober man for drinking a beer......

[PostmodernProphet]

I have no doubt that Kerry as President, with a republican congress at the time, would have been far more fiscally responsible than Bush was, if only because Kerry would veto republican spending, and republican Congress would just ignore a Kerry budget.


I would consider that delusional....Kerry wouldn't have vetoed a penny in federal spending, and his budget proposals would have dwarfed Bush's.......is it possible you have forgotten all the Democrats complaining about Bush's spending?.....they weren't complaining he was spending too much, they were complaining he was spending too little.....

[moderate democrat]

no, YOU avoid the point....what we had in Bush WAS fiscally responsible, compared to the typical Democratic alternative....I was content to vote for Bush.....but you weren't content until you could vote for someone far worse.....so don't give me some sob story about how I wasn't fiscally responsible......you sound like some skid-row drunk criticizing a sober man for drinking a beer......

you were content to vote for a fiscally irresponsible republican rather than press your party to move more to real fiscal responsibility and run a true fiscal conservative against Bush in 2004. I understand your contentment.

And again... I have never help myself up as thinking that fiscal conservatism was the right way to run the government in the first place. It is your weak kneed hypocrisy that I am illuminating.

[DannyR]

I would consider that delusional....Kerry wouldn't have vetoed a penny in federal spendingFrom a republican congress? He would have had more vetos than Bush, thats for certain.


and his budget proposals would have dwarfed Bush'swhich the republican congress would mostly ignore


is it possible you have forgotten all the Democrats complaining about Bush's spending?.....they weren't complaining he was spending too much, they were complaining he was spending too little.....Because Republicans don't like spending on social programs. Different budget priorities. Again, though, I have no doubt Kerry would push spending, but it would go nowhere. Under a Kerry administration we would have spent less than we did under Bush.

Unless you are actually arguing that a republican congress would give a yes on every Kerry proposal?

[Jagger]

The rate of economic growth declined after the tax reductions in 1981.

[Nukeman]

The rate of economic growth declined after the ERTA.

So tell me "dude" did Reagan reduce taxes or not. You keep contradicting yourself in different threads. YOU state he didn't lower taxes now you come out with a quote that says


The economic benefits of ERTA (INCOME TAX REDUCTION) were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

there I even underlined it and bolded it for you......

[Jagger]

It's well established that Republican Presidents are tax, borrow and spend socialists who run deficits and expand the government.

[Jagger]

Reagan signed seven tax increases, He signed one tax decrease. He still holds the record for signing the largest single tax increase in peace time. Reagan was a tax raising socialist, dude.

[Nukeman]

and yet we still have the "sharp reduction in taxes of the early 80's" hmmmm...

I find it absolutely amazing that YOU can equate conservatives with socialist. They are by and large AGAINST the social type programs that liberals are all for.......

[Jagger]

The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.

Reagan was a socialist who increased the size of the federal government. Clinton was a conservative who shrank the size of the federal government.

The Republican party is the party of federal government expansion.

[Jagger]

I find it absolutely amazing that YOU can equate conservatives with socialist. They are by and large AGAINST the social type programs that liberals are all for.......

I judge "conservatives" by what they do, not what they say. They say one thing, but they do the opposite.

[PostmodernProphet]

He still holds the record for signing the largest single tax increase in peace time.

not true....

[Nukeman]

Reagan signed seven tax increases, He signed one tax decrease. He still holds the record for signing the largest single tax increase in peace time. Reagan was a tax raising socialist, dude.

That "largest" tax increase that he signed..... What was that enacted to SAVE???????

[Jagger]

Reagan saved American Socialism in 1981 when he signed off on an increase in the payroll tax to rescue the Social Security Program.

[Nukeman]

Reagan saved American Socialism in 1981 when he signed off on an increase in the payroll tax to rescue the Social Security Program.
So you feel we should do completely away with SS?????

[Jagger]

If we're going to have Social Security, don't we need to change our name to the United Socialist States of America?

[Nukeman]

If we're going to have Social Security, don't we need to change our name to the United Socialist States of America?

Yet YOU have stated that ANYONE with a 401k is a socilaist. So if we want to save our own money we are socialist if the government sets aside essentialy a 401k for every woking person (thru S.S.) than thats socialist as well. so how are we to take care of ourselves as we get older????

[Jagger]

Yet YOU have stated that ANYONE with a 401k is a socilaist. The 401k program is social engineering. Why would an anti-socialist participate in a social engineering program that advances the cause of socialism?

[Jagger]

we are socialist if the government sets aside essentially a 401k for every working person (thru S.S.) Obviously, dude.


so how are we to take care of ourselves as we get older? Socialism (Social Security and the 401k program) will take care of us.

[Mr. P]

The 401k program is social engineering. Why would an anti-socialist participate in a social engineering program that advances the cause of socialism?

Let me guess, a savings account is socialist two..right?

[Jagger]

Let me guess, a savings account is socialist two..right? What type of savings account are you talking about?

[Mr. P]

What type of savings account are you talking about?

Just the run of the mill interest bearing account.

[Jagger]

Just the run of the mill interest bearing account. Is it insured by the FDIC?

[Mr. P]

Is it insured by the FDIC?

In this case no.

[Jagger]

In this case no.

What is the name of the bank?

[PostmodernProphet]

What is the name of the bank?

'cuz that makes a difference......lol......

[Mr. P]

Let me guess, a savings account is socialist two..right?


What is the name of the bank?

Just answer the damn question.

[DannyR]

If everything is socialist, then the word socialist has no meaning.

[PostmodernProphet]

having no meaning is socialist.....

[Kathianne]

and back to the topic. I've seen a few argue that earmarks are just a way for the states to get money and the representatives to 'bring home the bacon.' Um, yeah that'd be pork. The problems and solutions are not that difficult, more transparent, and certainly less costly:

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272625305.shtml


...Democratic leaders are right that "this is last year's business." And it's true that earmarks made up less than 2 percent of the $410 billion spending bill. But earmark spending is not only about money. It is about enabling fundamentally corrupt practices in the budgeting process. Too often the following happens:

Member of Congress obtains pork for a group or business. The recipient returns some of it in the form of campaign cash or, in at least one case, antiques for the home. Former Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, was famously brought down by a bribe-for-earmark scandal including Persian rugs.

The FBI is now investigating PMA Group on suspicions of making phony campaign donations to select representatives. Rep. John Murtha has received generous contributions from the employees of PMA, a lobbying firm whose clients have enjoyed earmarks, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likes the status quo on pork. Waving the flag of American security, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat recently told The Washington Post that defense-related earmarks "improve critical national defense programs."

No, they don't. Every defense-related earmark goes to something the Defense Department didn't ask for -- and is usually directed to some contractor back in the district. That money could have gone to actually enhancing national security.

Obama's call for still greater transparency on earmarking is a useless gesture. Most lawmakers are darn proud of them. They list the bacon they've bagged for their constituents right on their Websites.

Some portray earmarks as a beautiful exercise in democracy and ask, "Why should unelected officials make decisions?" Frankly, I'd rather have an unelected general in the Pentagon allocate defense dollars than a politician raking in campaign cash from a local defense contractor.

"Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose," Obama said. That is true, and many do. But the worthy ones can be part of a rational budgeting process.

A regrettable offshoot of the debate is that good ideas get ridiculed because they are earmarks. Great fun has been made of the earmark for swine odor and manure management in Iowa. Actually, those are very serious concerns in a state that has nearly seven hogs for every human.

We had a good laugh over the earmark for studying catfish genetics in Alabama. But Alabama has 250 commercial fish farmers for whom catfish is by far the dominant species.

And there was a big har-har-har about the earmark for grape genetics research in New York state. New York happens to be home to a large winemaking industry. ("Quick, peel me a grape," twittered Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a longtime foe of earmarks.)

Why are earmarks getting so much attention now? Three reasons: (1) They are easy to understand. (2) The public links the current economic fiasco to a "bought government" for which earmarks are one form of currency. (3) With trillions now going out the door for bailouts and economic stimuli, Americans feel they have an enormous stake in clean budgeting.

If Washington can't end a tawdry system that involves relatively small amounts of money, what hope is there for reforming the big stuff? Cutting the number of earmarks to zero shouldn't be that hard -- and should be this year's business.

[Jagger]

Just answer the damn question. I need the facts first. What is the name of the bank?

[Mr. P]

I need the facts first. What is the name of the bank?

No you don't need the name of the bank. Is an interest bearing savings account socialist?

[Kathianne]

No you don't need the name of the bank. Is an interest bearing savings account socialist?

Indeed. He doesn't need your pin either. ;)

[5stringJeff]

If a citizen has no choice but to contribute to Social Security, or to deposit his money in a bank that is forced to buy FDIC insurance, then I'd hardly call that citizen a willing socialist.

[Kathianne]

If a citizen has no choice but to contribute to Social Security, or to deposit his money in a bank that is forced to buy FDIC insurance, then I'd hardly call that citizen a willing socialist.

:clap::clap:

[Jagger]

No you don't need the name of the bank. Is an interest bearing savings account socialist? I need the name of the bank in order to determine if the account is a socialist account.

[Kathianne]

I need the name of the bank.

Stop it.

[Kathianne]

That means the nation is socialist. That makes every citizen a socialist.

Not if they keep fighting the premise.

[PostmodernProphet]

from Kathianne's link...


Americans feel they have an enormous stake in clean budgeting.

amen and amen....

[Yurt]

That means the nation is socialist. That makes every citizen a socialist.

:lame2:

[Mr. P]

I need the name of the bank in order to determine if the account is a socialist account.

You don't need a name, all banks operate under the same rules regardless of "name".

So, just answer the question. That is, if you can.

Is an interest bearing savings account socialist?

[DannyR]

I'm guessing he's trying to determine if you're talking about a national bank like Citi/Nationsbank/Wachovia or some small time savings and loan or perhaps even the 1st Bank of Inside My Mattress. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

I'm guessing he's trying to determine if you're talking about a national bank like Citi/Nationsbank/Wachovia or some small time savings and loan or perhaps even the 1st Bank of Inside My Mattress. :laugh2:

No, he's just avoiding answering the question.

[Kathianne]

I'm guessing he's trying to determine if you're talking about a national bank like Citi/Nationsbank/Wachovia or some small time savings and loan or perhaps even the 1st Bank of Inside My Mattress. :laugh2:

My guess is he wants all of you to chase your tail. But heh, I'm a cynic.

[Mr. P]

My guess is he wants all of you to chase your tail. But heh, I'm a cynic.

Exactly what it's about.

[PostmodernProphet]

My guess is he wants all of you to chase your tail. But heh, I'm a cynic.

I can't agree...that would imply a higher level of intelligence than I think it is safe to assume.....I'M a cynic.....

[Jagger]

You don't need a name...

I need the name of the bank.

[Yurt]

I need the name of the bank.

for what exact purpose do you need the name of the bank, how exactly will this assist you in answring a very simple question?

[5stringJeff]

That means the nation is socialist. That makes every citizen a socialist.

No, it means that the government has imposed a socialist program. If citizens desire to not contribute to SS, and they are forced to, that's authoritarianism.

[Jagger]

the government has imposed a socialist program. The U. S. Government is an expression of the people's will. The American people are socialists who want socialism.

[5stringJeff]

The U. S. Government is an expression of the people's will. The American people are socialists who want socialism.

If America were a democracy, that may be so. But it's not: it's a constitutional republic, where even if the majority of the people (and/or their representatives) wanted to do certain things, like limit free speech or suspend habeus corpus or even commit genocide, they would be unable to pass such laws because of the protections in our Constitution. Moreover, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to redistribute wealth.