Tigermike 3,053 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If you believe all politicians are liars in this regard then why isolate Obama? I'm just not as pessimistic as you...certainly when it comes to Obama. Are you really this dense and this big of an Obama bobo honker? Never mind don't bother answering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). You go, girl!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). You go, girl!!! Tweedledumb was already here, now Tweedledee has arrived and adds nothing to the debate. Which isn't unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. I pointed out how earmarks made this Congress (which include the ones from Senator Obama that you posted) DO NOT contribute to the deficit. I guess you have trouble reading what I type. So, I am not sure how this is "game, set, match" for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. I pointed out how earmarks made this Congress (which include the ones from Senator Obama that you posted) DO NOT contribute to the deficit. I guess you have trouble reading what I type. So, I am not sure how this is "game, set, match" for you. Tigermike doesn't understand PAYGO, that's how it's "game, set, match" to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. I pointed out how earmarks made this Congress (which include the ones from Senator Obama that you posted) DO NOT contribute to the deficit. I guess you have trouble reading what I type. So, I am not sure how this is "game, set, match" for you. So let me get this straight. Earmarks which is government spending do no contribute to the deficit. Is that what you are saying? If that's the case why worry about the deficit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. I pointed out how earmarks made this Congress (which include the ones from Senator Obama that you posted) DO NOT contribute to the deficit. I guess you have trouble reading what I type. So, I am not sure how this is "game, set, match" for you. So let me get this straight. Earmarks which is government spending do no contribute to the deficit. Is that what you are saying? If that's the case why worry about the deficit? Earmarks made this Congress do not contribute to the deficit b/c they need an offset to get passed. So yes, that's what I am saying. But again, had you actually researched what Congress is doing and not just depend on the snippets of news that the talking heads provide, you would know that. Why worry about the deficit? Because we are currently running one with our day-to-day expenses. We need to either cut spending or increase revenue (raise taxes) or some combination to get back on track. We are in a deficit because of the big spending that has happened between FY2000-FY2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 However, CC, Bush was the worst of all possible worlds. He lowered taxes while accelerating government spending. If he had just kept government spending roughly equal to the rate of inflation, we would be seeing immense surpluses right now. I agree. I have never been a fan of his spending. I just feel that national security is more important. McCain was right when he said the tax cuts should have been coupled with spending cuts. I think Bush tried so hard to get along with dims that he turned into one fiscally. Let's pay for the national security, not put it on credit. Let one terrorist bomb blow up in your neighborhood and you'll be ready to spend like a drunken sailor. I do wish everyone in DC would cut spending. But I do not wish for it to be cut in terms of security. Between welfare, social security, and medicare, almost 80% of the national budget is GONE. The security you speak of costs less than 20% of our budget. So I say we learn to let folks save their own SS money and cut back on more entitlement programs. Dims have been notorious for cutting military to give to entitlement. Now we are at war with terrorism and since they can't cut the military without Americans getting pissed off, they propose to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Osama Obama is one of two dim heroes proposing this. So my response to the gist of this thread was to point out how Robin Hood taxation only hurts the whole country. Not just the big bad rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 TM, please point out where the funding for his projects increase the deficit. You provided no link other than the projects themselves. Did you research to see if there were any offsets found in order to pay for these? In order for the appropriations bills to pass the House, they require offsets for any earmarks-- per their own rules for the 110th Congress. But you knew that! You made the issue a partisan one when you pointed out all of the earmarks just from Obama. If you want to start a thread on earmarks then do it. Channonc, please point out how Republican earmarks are the only ones that increase the deficit. Please do. Pointing out Obama's earmarks in no way makes it partisan. RR made a statement and I asked a question and provided back up. And you know that. Would you like for all earmarks for all politicians to be listed? You must want the servers for this site to crash and burn. I never said ONLY Republican earmarks increase the deficit. Please read my post. I was pointing out that any earmarks made in this Congress required offsets in order to pass the House. You tried to make this a partisan issue by singling out Obama, I only point out that 1. Republicans also make earmarks (and lots of them) and 2. for earmarks to pass the House they must have an offset in order to pass (which means they are not deficit spending). Did RR make the following statement? No Democrat that I support believes in deficit spending. So not sure what you mean when you say Bush turned into a fiscal Democrat. RR supports Obama. Obama had earmarks. All earmarks contribute to the deficit. Game, set, match. I pointed out how earmarks made this Congress (which include the ones from Senator Obama that you posted) DO NOT contribute to the deficit. I guess you have trouble reading what I type. So, I am not sure how this is "game, set, match" for you. So let me get this straight. Earmarks which is government spending do no contribute to the deficit. Is that what you are saying? If that's the case why worry about the deficit? Earmarks made this Congress do not contribute to the deficit b/c they need an offset to get passed. So yes, that's what I am saying. But again, had you actually researched what Congress is doing and not just depend on the snippets of news that the talking heads provide, you would know that. Why worry about the deficit? Because we are currently running one with our day-to-day expenses. We need to either cut spending or increase revenue (raise taxes) or some combination to get back on track. We are in a deficit because of the big spending that has happened between FY2000-FY2006 So you are saying that all these earmarks have all have offsets? I call BS on that. If that is so then why not have an Earmark Moratorium? Pork is pork no matter how you hide it, no matter how you describe it in order to hide it. Pork is pork. The Constitution does not give Congress a blank check to spend tax dollars on anything it wants in whatever way it wants. And you know how those offsets work don't you. So be honest about offsets. Pork-barrel spending contributes to the deficit both directly and indirectly. You know that don't you? The 3,417-page (and counting) omnibus appropriations bill unveiled by Democratic appropriators provides further evidence that Congress has failed to curb its addiction to spending and pork. On the surface, the bill adheres to President Bush's $932 billion cap on discretionary spending. However, the bill employs enough gimmicks to push total discretionary spending nearly $20 billion above the President's requested level. Congress pledged to limit discretionary spending to President Bush's $932 billion request and to cut the number of earmarks in half from the 2005 peak level. This omnibus bill breaks both pledges. With more than 11,000 earmarks costing approximately $20 billion, Congress decided to bust the budget by $20 billion through the use of gimmicks. You & Al & RR defending the spending habits of this congress is despicable. Lawmakers should reject such irresponsible budgeting and eliminate the pork projects in order to offset any new spending. Otherwise, President Bush should veto this bill, and insist on a year-long continuing resolution that would likely save taxpayers more than $30 billion relative to the omnibus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Let one terrorist bomb blow up in your neighborhood and you'll be ready to spend like a drunken sailor. I do wish everyone in DC would cut spending. But I do not wish for it to be cut in terms of security. Between welfare, social security, and medicare, almost 80% of the national budget is GONE. The security you speak of costs less than 20% of our budget. So I say we learn to let folks save their own SS money and cut back on more entitlement programs. Dims have been notorious for cutting military to give to entitlement. Now we are at war with terrorism and since they can't cut the military without Americans getting pissed off, they propose to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Osama Obama is one of two dim heroes proposing this. So my response to the gist of this thread was to point out how Robin Hood taxation only hurts the whole country. Not just the big bad rich. Not quite. They were 47% of 2007 budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So you are saying that all these earmarks have all have offsets? I call BS on that. If that is so then why not have an Earmark Moratorium? Pork is pork no matter how you hide it, no matter how you describe it in order to hide it. Pork is pork. The Constitution does not give Congress a blank check to spend tax dollars on anything it wants in whatever way it wants. And you know how those offsets work don't you. So be honest about offsets. Pork-barrel spending contributes to the deficit both directly and indirectly. You know that don't you? The 3,417-page (and counting) omnibus appropriations bill unveiled by Democratic appropriators provides further evidence that Congress has failed to curb its addiction to spending and pork. On the surface, the bill adheres to President Bush's $932 billion cap on discretionary spending. However, the bill employs enough gimmicks to push total discretionary spending nearly $20 billion above the President's requested level. Congress pledged to limit discretionary spending to President Bush's $932 billion request and to cut the number of earmarks in half from the 2005 peak level. This omnibus bill breaks both pledges. With more than 11,000 earmarks costing approximately $20 billion, Congress decided to bust the budget by $20 billion through the use of gimmicks. You & Al & RR defending the spending habits of this congress is despicable. Lawmakers should reject such irresponsible budgeting and eliminate the pork projects in order to offset any new spending. Otherwise, President Bush should veto this bill, and insist on a year-long continuing resolution that would likely save taxpayers more than $30 billion relative to the omnibus. Well, let's be honest about one thing. Taxpayers want to see the money come back into their states, by way of new transportation infrastructure, educational facilities, hospitals, homeland security grants, the list goes on. If their lawmakers won't do it, they will elect someone who will. Trust me, I am ok with curbing needless spending, but let's be honest, most taxpayers don't want to cut the funding that helps enhance their communities. I find it funny that this is such a black and white issue to you and that everything that is labeled as an "earmark" is bad. Trust me, they aren't all bad, and they aren't all needless. Sometimes the intent of Congress has to be laid out explicitly, otherwise, it will be completely ignored and $$ spent in the wrong places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 However, CC, Bush was the worst of all possible worlds. He lowered taxes while accelerating government spending. If he had just kept government spending roughly equal to the rate of inflation, we would be seeing immense surpluses right now. I agree. I have never been a fan of his spending. I just feel that national security is more important. McCain was right when he said the tax cuts should have been coupled with spending cuts. I think Bush tried so hard to get along with dims that he turned into one fiscally. Let's pay for the national security, not put it on credit. So no democrats that you're supporting will vote YES for this "stimulus " package? The federal budget is already in a deficit, and now here is the $145 billion stimulus package on top of the federal budget deficit. Did the democrats vote themselves a raise in pay despite the federal budget already being in a budget deficit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 However, CC, Bush was the worst of all possible worlds. He lowered taxes while accelerating government spending. If he had just kept government spending roughly equal to the rate of inflation, we would be seeing immense surpluses right now. I agree. I have never been a fan of his spending. I just feel that national security is more important. McCain was right when he said the tax cuts should have been coupled with spending cuts. I think Bush tried so hard to get along with dims that he turned into one fiscally. Let's pay for the national security, not put it on credit. So no democrats that you're supporting will vote YES for this "stimulus " package? The federal budget is already in a deficit, and now here is the $145 billion stimulus package on top of the federal budget deficit. Did the democrats vote themselves a raise in pay despite the federal budget already being in a budget deficit? In the six years of this Administration that there was a Republican controlled congress was there voted pay raises? Yep. We wouldn't need a stimulus package had this Administration focused as much on this country as they do on Iraq. It leaves Congress stuck between a rock and a hard place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 But the point I'm trying to make is, Democrats are doing the same thing. Just because Republicans did it/do it, does it mean that the Democrats are now justified to do it too? Ok, we know how Obama and Clinton will pay for Healthcare. What about to eliminate the federal budget deficit? And aww, how nice that both Republican and Democrats are on the side of this stimulus. I thought Democrats had an election mandate because of Republicans overspending, corruption and Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 The Earmark ProblemOriginally, lawmakers would fund government grant programs and then let federal agencies distribute the funds: (A) to state or local governments through statutory formulas; or ( to specific groups though competitive application processes. Now, Congress actually determines, within legislation, who will receive government grants by "earmarking" grant money to specific recipients. Earmarks are also known as "pork projects." Since 1996, the number of annual earmarks has leapt from 958 to 11,738.[6] Earmarking is a corrupting process. It effectively gives individual lawmakers their own pot of tax dollars to distribute to organizations of their choosing. Consequently, politics and campaign contributions now play a larger role in government grant distributions, at the expense of statutory formulas and competitive application processes. Lobbyists promote their matchmaker role, effectively auctioning government grants to the highest bidder. As a result, the FBI has launched several corruption investigations to determine whether lawmakers based earmark decisions on personal profit. In the November 2006 elections, the American people sent a clear message that they are tired of runaway spending, pork, and corruption.[8] Despite promising reform, the Democratic majority in Congress produced an omnibus spending bill that includes the second-most pork projects of any bill in American history. The $21 billion of FY 2008 pork is not trivial: It is equal to the entire federal personal income tax liability for the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Delaware combined.[10] President Bush pledged to rein in earmarks and has the power to keep his promise by issuing an executive order cancelling them. link Chart: Congress Brushes Off $20 Billion as 'Table Scraps' PDF link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Of course there are those who take advantage of the process, but those people are few and far between. To make the sweeping accusation that every earmark is bad and the Congressman will benefit from it is like saying everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. It's not a fair representation of what is going on. Again, the process is very complex. The media loves to simplify it, but it doesn't always work like that. Trust me, there are times when a district needs the money that is earmarked, and without it explicitly written in the law it wouldn't happen. Not because they aren't deserving, but because the Administrative process does not always work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.