No More Earmarks , he said.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Dec 15, 2009.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58528

    (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama will likely sign the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package passed by the Senate over the weekend containing more than 5,000 earmarks, a White House spokesman said Monday, stressing that the number of earmarks had dropped from the previous year’s spending bill.

    Obama signed the 2009 omnibus bill last March. It contained 8,570 earmarks. He vowed then that the bill signing was simply wrapping up the previous year’s business – a “departure point” – and that things would change under his watch.

    SNIP

    When asked about Obama’s earlier comment about “far-reaching change” in omnibus spending, Gibbs said, “We’ve seen a decrease of 15 percent in the number of earmarks. Again, it is not perfect.” :laugh:
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Well! Paraphrasing SC Rep. Joe Wilson: Obama Lies!
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    As well as hires abortionists and perverts.
     
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would assume that President Obama even knows what his position is. Lets face it: Obama, like Bush, just reads the speeches he is given and parrots what his advisors tell him. I don't think Obama knows what he believes/thinks on these issues. Sort of a sad commentary on the state of the American Presidency when one thinks about it.
     
  5. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    I agree if he said no more earmarks it is rather foolish of him to now support something with earmarks.

    However, earmarks aren't some evil thing. In fact, I'd rather have a bill with earmarks than without. Earmarks don't create additional spending. They just specify where the funds are to be spent. Without earmarks, the executive branch will just decide where the money is spent rather than it being in the bill. A simplified example would be if congress passed a bill saying that 1 million dollars will be spent on road projects. Without earmarks, the 1 million can be spent on any road projects the executive branch wants. With earmarks, the 1 million will be sent on specific road projects that are listed in the bill.

    Yes, I know earmarks can be abused to spend a bills money on things not intended for in the bill. We obviously need to pay attention to that and it needs to be dealt with. I'd much rather have the transparency of earmarks listed in a bill though, than the executive branch having free reign over the money.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    So you're saying that the amount of spending in the bill would be the same without earmarks as it is with them?

    I think you're dreaming. :tonofbricks:
     
  7. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Yep..that's exactly what I'm saying. Earmarks don't add to the spending...they just define it.
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's not true. Earmarks are additional monies added to a bill to entice reluctant congress people.
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not correct. If you take the earmarks out, the spending would go down by that amount.

    Besides...I didn't figure you'd be for buying votes, since you are a fan of honesty in government and all...

    And before anyone says it...I agree with you: the "D" or "R" suffix, with very few exceptions (what few exceptions there are tend to come from the "R" side) makes little difference in a Senator's propensity to steal my money and either:

    1. Give it to someone who didn't earn it; and/or
    2. Buy votes with it.
     
  10. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    No, that's not how it works. Earmarks only specify what funds will be spent on. If earmarks are not there, then the executive branch will determine what the funds are spent on. By the time the earmarks are placed in the bill, the amount of funds has already been determined. Don't just take my word for it, listen to Ron Paul.

    http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2009/03/17/earmarks-dont-add-up-by-ron-paul.aspx

    I think we can take Ron Paul as an expert on this subject. He's a member of Congress and one that seeks to limit government spending in every way possible. That should qualify him pretty well.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Legislature leadership: Hey lets spend billions of dollars on we do not yet know what.

    Congressman #1: Well I want this

    Congressman #2: I want that

    _____________________________________________


    Give me a break
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Ron Paul once railed against earmarks now he is as much an earmark spender as anyone else. He has no credibility on this issue.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I won't waste time trying to convice you otherwise.

    It is unbelievable to me that any reasonably well informed adult would take that stance. :BangHead:
     
  14. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    You won't waste your time trying to convice me because you have nothing to back up your claims. I've given you the testimony of a well informed member of Congress. A member that is among the most fiscally conservative members currently in office. I'd be happy for you to educate me on the subject, if you have any proof of your claims. All my research, however, shows that with or without earmarks the spending would be at the same level. The only difference is that without earmarks a different branch of government decides where the money goes.

    Please, could you just attempt to be reasonable for once? I'm open and willing to listen to any reasonable claims you have to make that earmarks increase spending.
     
  15. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Then give me something that has some credibility Rev. Show me a reliable source that proves that earmarks increase spending.
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    "Now correlation does not always equal causation, but anybody who knows how Congress actually works should find the link persuasive. Sen. Jim DeMint told Politico last year: “I talked to colleagues who would say, ‘DeMint, I gotta vote for this bill because it has my project in it,’ even though the bill was way over budget.”

    Source
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    You're delusional.

    But you'd have to be to believe most earmarks are not adding to the budget.
     
  18. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Thanks for the link Rev. It proves my point. From the article you posted:

    That's exactly what I've been stating in this thread. Earmarks do not add spending to a bill. Adding or removing earmarks do not modify the level of spending in a bill.

    I agree with the link that you posted that earmarks may sway a congressman to vote for a bill, but that's a different topic than what I was discussing.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    No its not it is exactly the same. If congressman would other wise vote down a bill (spending) but votes for it because of his earmark (spending) it adds to spending. 1+1=2 Other wise that bill(spending) may be defeated (no spending). 1+1=2

    But i see you completely overlooked the last paragraph of that link which I posted and which is contrary to what you said. The problem with your position ( and Ron Paul) is the facts do not end there you cut them off. There is more to the issue than what you and Ron Paul are presenting. Time for a little honesty
     
    #19 Revmitchell, Dec 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2009
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    either Collender doesn't know what he's talking about or he's deliberately misleading to justify spending money on pork barrel projects that doesn't have to be spent.
     

Share This Page

Loading...