PDA

View Full Version : Earmarks...



sack316
02-14-2008, 08:03 AM
only because I know there would be something posted about this if the data were reversed:

(data from one source, actual dollar amounts somehow vary greatly from one source to another, but the point would remain the same reguardless):
Hillary Rodham Clinton: $530 million+
Barack Obama : $40.6 million
John McCain: Zippo, as he says he wants to establish himself as a critic of excessive government spending

Now is it just me, or does this appear back asswards to what I've read posted in reguards to funds such as this on this very board? Or then again, could possibly be why threads on topics such as that have suddenly gone the way of the dodo.

Now, in the interest of being fair--- in my limited research on the subject matter, it does appear Hillary DID use some of these funds for what were actually good projects (i.e. some was used for military and defense things). But also some things seemed more geared as "things I should put money towards because I'll need these people's votes later... considering who I will be running against" type of thinking. (note: not intended to single her out or as a sexist remark... she is used as an example solely because she had far and away secured the most funds of this type)

Also, the numbers from different sources DID show up differently... but across the board from all sources the huge gap in difference remains the same... so no need to say "oh, that number is a few million off so this entire point is moot"... the point is, hopefully obviously, not about specific dollar amounts.

Sack

eg8r
02-14-2008, 09:35 AM
Sack you are just here causing trouble. Why do you hate hillary soooo much. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <~~~sitting back waiting to read Gayle's spin on the data, somehow this is W's fault

SpiderMan
02-14-2008, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> only because I know there would be something posted about this if the data were reversed:

(data from one source, actual dollar amounts somehow vary greatly from one source to another, but the point would remain the same reguardless):
Hillary Rodham Clinton: $530 million+
Barack Obama : $40.6 million
John McCain: Zippo, as he says he wants to establish himself as a critic of excessive government spending

<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks, Sack, for some good information. I'm planning to sit out this election, due to lack of any good candidates, but here's one reason to at least consider McCain.

SpiderMan

Gayle in MD
02-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Dear Sack,
Are these numbers, totals for a year? what's the time period involved?

BTW, I just read that earmarks are slightly less than one percent of the budget.

bamadog
02-14-2008, 11:22 AM
This woman must be stopped.

From Huffington Post:

Clinton By Far Worst Abuser Of Earmarks
Posted January 30, 2008 | 03:27 PM (EST)
Read More: 2008 Election, Offthebus, Breaking Off The Bus News


"In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton obtained 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties.

Email
Print
Clinton's earmarks are an important issue for Democrats who worry about the growing corporate control over their party. But the earmark issue may be even more important in the general election because it could become the swing issue this fall allowing the presidency to remain in Republican hands.

In the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, Clinton pushed for more earmarks than any other senator except the chair of the Armed Services Committee. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million (by contrast, Obama had only one earmark, requested with several other senators, to help children with severe disabilities). Clinton has been particularly active in obtaining earmarks for defense companies in New York, helping them sidestep the normal competitive system for contractors. She's also raised more than $270,000 for her campaigns from these defense contractors.

Hillary Clinton's $1 million earmark for a museum to celebrate the 1969 Woodstock music festival could become one of the biggest issues of the 2008 campaign. Not only does it anger the culture conservatives who see Woodstock as nothing more than a bunch of pot-smoking naked hippies, but even the people with fond memories of the rock festival must acknowledge that a museum is not exactly the best symbol of its meaning, and that a million dollars should be spent by pandering politicians for this project. The Woodstock earmark was voted out, 52-42, on October 18, 2007, making it one of only two earmarks to be voted down (the other was $129,000 for the home of the perfect Christmas tree project in North Carolina)."

You've got to be kidding me!

cheesemouse
02-14-2008, 12:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> only because I know there would be something posted about this if the data were reversed:

(data from one source, actual dollar amounts somehow vary greatly from one source to another, but the point would remain the same reguardless):
Hillary Rodham Clinton: $530 million+
Barack Obama : $40.6 million
John McCain: Zippo, as he says he wants to establish himself as a critic of excessive government spending

Now is it just me, or does this appear back asswards to what I've read posted in reguards to funds such as this on this very board? Or then again, could possibly be why threads on topics such as that have suddenly gone the way of the dodo.

Now, in the interest of being fair--- in my limited research on the subject matter, it does appear Hillary DID use some of these funds for what were actually good projects (i.e. some was used for military and defense things). But also some things seemed more geared as "things I should put money towards because I'll need these people's votes later... considering who I will be running against" type of thinking. (note: not intended to single her out or as a sexist remark... she is used as an example solely because she had far and away secured the most funds of this type)

Also, the numbers from different sources DID show up differently... but across the board from all sources the huge gap in difference remains the same... so no need to say "oh, that number is a few million off so this entire point is moot"... the point is, hopefully obviously, not about specific dollar amounts.

Sack <hr /></blockquote>

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
these are about the only type of numbers you can make any sense out of....how much in and how much out....

eg8r
02-14-2008, 12:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm planning to sit out this election, due to lack of any good candidates, but here's one reason to at least consider McCain.
<hr /></blockquote> I am with ya Spiderman, I don't think I will be voting either. I find it a sad state of affairs when a candidate is so low that you "have" to look for something that "might" be a positive.

eg8r

bamadog
02-14-2008, 02:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I'm planning to sit out this election, due to lack of any good candidates, but here's one reason to at least consider McCain.
<hr /></blockquote> I am with ya Spiderman, I don't think I will be voting either. I find it a sad state of affairs when a candidate is so low that you "have" to look for something that "might" be a positive.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, but you guys are not looking at the big picture.
The next President will likely have Two Supreme Court nominations. Stevens and Ginsburg will likely be retiring. These are appointments for life, and have far-reaching consequences. They are too important to be left in the hands of Obama or Clinton. I think we all know their judicial philosophy.
McCain is committed to nominating conservative, constructionist justices.
He will get my vote for no other reason than that.

bamadog
02-14-2008, 02:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Dear Sack,
Are these numbers, totals for a year? what's the time period involved?

BTW, I just read that earmarks are slightly less than one percent of the budget. <hr /></blockquote>

You're hilarious Gayle!
Now you are trying to trivialize the piggish spending of Hillary. But a few short days ago you were screaming about Republican earmarks.

"The Democrats cut earmarks by 40 % compared to the spending under the Republican control. The reality is that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that YOUR PARTY,s the REPIGLICANS, ARE THE BIG SPENDERS, and YOUR PRESIDENT, NEVER VETOED A SINGLE SPENDING BILL WHEN REPIGLICANS WERE THE ONES DOING THE SPENDING" (quote Gayle)

Do you recognize your hypocrisy? We do.

eg8r
02-14-2008, 02:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you guys are not looking at the big picture.
The next President will likely have Two Supreme Court nominations. Stevens and Ginsburg will likely be retiring. These are appointments for life, and have far-reaching consequences. They are too important to be left in the hands of Obama or Clinton. <hr /></blockquote> You are missing my point...I don't see McCain as any different than the other two so if he gets to fill those two seats I cannot be assured he will pick someone that would have my same interests.

[ QUOTE ]
McCain is committed to nominating conservative, constructionist justices.
<hr /></blockquote> This is all lip service if you ask me.

[ QUOTE ]
He will get my vote for no other reason than that. <hr /></blockquote> In my opinion a vote for any of the three candidates is a vote for the promotion of illegal immigration. They all voted for that horrible bill last year and there is no way I can be part of that.

eg8r

eg8r
02-14-2008, 02:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I just read that earmarks are slightly less than one percent of the budget.
<hr /></blockquote> This is classic. We have been hearing Gayle whine about earmarks for more than a year now and telling us how horrible the reps are for their earmarks. And now when the numbers are displayed for all to see and it is embarassing for Clinton, Gayle tries to downplay them by telling us that she just read earmarks are slightly less than 1% of the budget.

Makes you wonder what she was reading when it was fun to bash the Reps. There is no question Gayle's partisanship is alive and well but how funny is it to see it here so blatantly. Almost as funny as her threatening Fran for something Gayle did herself.

eg8r

bamadog
02-14-2008, 03:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Sorry, but you guys are not looking at the big picture.
The next President will likely have Two Supreme Court nominations. Stevens and Ginsburg will likely be retiring. These are appointments for life, and have far-reaching consequences. They are too important to be left in the hands of Obama or Clinton. <hr /></blockquote> You are missing my point...I don't see McCain as any different than the other two so if he gets to fill those two seats I cannot be assured he will pick someone that would have my same interests.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I understand your point, but I think that you are wrong about McCain. Read his speech from CPAC, and his victory speech from the Potomac primaries. He is definitely different from the Dems. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
When you have read the speeches, get back to me.

SKennedy
02-14-2008, 03:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Sorry, but you guys are not looking at the big picture.
The next President will likely have Two Supreme Court nominations. Stevens and Ginsburg will likely be retiring. These are appointments for life, and have far-reaching consequences. They are too important to be left in the hands of Obama or Clinton. <hr /></blockquote> You are missing my point...I don't see McCain as any different than the other two so if he gets to fill those two seats I cannot be assured he will pick someone that would have my same interests.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I understand your point, but I think that you are wrong about McCain. Read his speech from CPAC, and his victory speech from the Potomac primaries. He is definitely different from the Dems. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
When you have read the speeches, get back to me. <hr /></blockquote>

He may be different, but not enough! Bush did too much placating and McCain will be worse. If McCain is smart, he'll pick Romney as his running mate. And maybe that's why Romney left when he did and for the reasons he stated...smart thing for someone already tagged behind the scenes as the VP candidate? And of course, he has thrown his support behind McCain today. Romney on the ticket would help me tolerate McCain better.

LWW
02-14-2008, 04:01 PM
I concur that the biggest error of the Bush admin was attempting to appease a party that would burn the nation to the ground to gain power.

LWW

sack316
02-14-2008, 05:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Dear Sack,
Are these numbers, totals for a year? what's the time period involved?

BTW, I just read that earmarks are slightly less than one percent of the budget. <hr /></blockquote>

I'd have to go back and see what the time period was...

OK, for last years spending bills, the tally seems to be $340 million--- as best I can tell. But whether it's hundreds of millions, or just five bucks, my point was that one of the biggest things the left has been talking about is government waste and what a bad job this administration does... and for the most part I'd even be willing to agree to that. BUT, the the two great hopes from the left are touted as being a cure for such things, whereas the evidence suggests otherwise on this particular matter. To be honest, I never knew what the hell earmarks were until I read posts on this board about how bad they were and how much republicans abuse them. I simply then just found it funny that Hillary (who has been touted on here as a solution to such waste) not only herself secures them, but also secures far and away many many more of them than any other candidate. But until I posted this, it was deafly silent on that particular subject... and somehow I feel that were it hillary that were taking McCain's stance, and McCain were the one securing hundreds of millions in earmarks... we'd have about ten different threads about how much another republican is wasting.

Now again, as I said before, to be fair: in what I looked at some of that was really used for some good things. Some other things that earmarks went to also just so happen to endorse Hillary as their girl, and thus far a few I've found happen to also have CEO's and executives that also have happened to contribute to her campaign fund. Now to me, that's really not a big deal and I could care less.... BUT if the role were reversed we'd have a thread on how "Candidate X abuses tax dollars through earmarks to fund own campaign". Obviously that's not the case (I hope), but as I said, if the roles were reversed...

Sack

eg8r
02-14-2008, 06:06 PM
What he says now has little bearing on me. He will say whatever he thinks you want to hear now. What he has done in the past is how I measure him. His stance on illegal immigration is enough to say NO.

jayalley
02-14-2008, 08:15 PM
You are absolutely on target, bamadog. It's all about the courts and the interpretation of what our culture will become in the next 35 years of tenure likely accruing to the upcoming 2 or 3 appointments in the next administration.

jayalley
02-14-2008, 08:19 PM
egr8 - I admire your posts and agree with you on the immigration sellout. However, in the end, we should avoid self-immolation by what Freud describes as "the narcissism of small differences."

jayalley
02-14-2008, 08:24 PM
...and YOU are still an idiot who doesn't even know what is on her own homepage. Why should we believe your veracity when you "meticulously" cite all these other websites while you can't manage your own ?

pooltchr
02-15-2008, 05:35 AM
Ed,
I understand your frustration. Believe me, I am not at all pleased with the offerings of either party for this election. As sad as it sounds, I think we will have to examine all the candidates and decide which one is likely to do the LEAST damage. My thinking is that Obama, based on his past history, may end up being a "do nothing" president along the lines of Jimmy Carter. That might not be a bad thing. OTOH, McCain, while certainly not a conservative by my standards, might be less inclined to load up the court with fewer liberal judges. Hillary will lead us down the path to socialism. All 3 seem likely to support some type of amnesty for illegal aliens, but we can always hope that the balance in congress will remain close enough to save us from anything really stupid. (I know that last one is a stretch, but we can still hope)
Not voting is not an option.
Steve

SKennedy
02-15-2008, 02:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Ed,
I understand your frustration. Believe me, I am not at all pleased with the offerings of either party for this election. As sad as it sounds, I think we will have to examine all the candidates and decide which one is likely to do the LEAST damage. My thinking is that Obama, based on his past history, may end up being a "do nothing" president along the lines of Jimmy Carter. That might not be a bad thing. OTOH, McCain, while certainly not a conservative by my standards, might be less inclined to load up the court with fewer liberal judges. Hillary will lead us down the path to socialism. All 3 seem likely to support some type of amnesty for illegal aliens, but we can always hope that the balance in congress will remain close enough to save us from anything really stupid. (I know that last one is a stretch, but we can still hope)
Not voting is not an option.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

I agree! Especially about Obama.....I think he'd celebrate for 4 years!

Gayle in MD
02-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Ed,
do you ever get things straight?

FYI, Democrats cut earmarks by over thirty percent, compared to the annual Budgets of Republicans.

Secondly, What I have whined about, as you put it, is that neither Bush, or any other republican politican, or pundit, said a damned thing about earmarks while the Republicans were having a field day, and Bush didn't veto a single spending bill, or even mention spending, until Democrats had their razor thin majority. My complaints have been the right being so penny wise and pound foolish, and since earmarks represent no more than one percent of the budget, I believe that complaint should garner some merit. bush has lost billions in iraq and Asghanistan, and issued out no bid contracts to incompetent corporations, who have performed shoddy work, and even made many enemies, some eve kidnapping phillipinos and then using them as slaves. The budget doesn't even reflect what he's spending over there, not to mention the multibillion dollar embassy, the biggest in the world, as large as the Vatican. Don't misrepresent what I've written here. Republican earmarks were greater than any number before, or after, they lost the majority.

Additionally, if Hillary's comparison to Obama is fair, it should be averaged according to the time span involved. He's' only been a Senator for a couple years or so. She's been in there over seven.

As for your last nasty comment, I'd love to go into that, but I'm not going to say anything about it.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-15-2008, 02:19 PM
Since the administration has already deleted your last nasty post, I'd suggest you stop posting to me completely. I have nothing to say to you, nor will I ever after your last stunt.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
02-15-2008, 05:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Additionally, if Hillary's comparison to Obama is fair, it should be averaged according to the time span involved. He's' only been a Senator for a couple years or so. She's been in there over seven.

<hr /></blockquote>

In last years spending, she had four times the amount compared to Obama--- just to give you the fair comparison. And if amount of time/experience is the difference, why then is she still so high compared to others who have been there longer than even her?

Please don't misunderstand my post, I honestly have no opinion on whether or not using such spending is good or bad. All I did know what then when you hear about a republican securing such funds, the left here talks about it as a horrible waste of our money. All I'm looking for is the same consideration be given to ALL congress on that particular matter at hand... which is something we obviously haven't had here as the topic of earmarks had been silent suddenly until now.

As far as the Dems being the ones cutting earmarks, I found the following in the same article from the NY times:

"Democrats won control of the House in 2006 with promises to end the Republican “culture of corruption.”...
"The White House says Congress earmarked nearly $17 billion for more than 11,700 projects in the current fiscal year. About 40 percent of the money was for items requested by Republicans."

Doing my fancy math, and factoring in that we are a two party system, I estimate that would mean the remainder of 60 percent was requested by the left(?)

So, I WILL grant that the spending in discussion was handled very poorly by the house in years past, but one cannot claim it is truely being solved by the democratic representatives based on the information at hand. And EVEN if it were, how then exactly is Hillary helping on that particular matter? I'm not "saying" I'm just "asking" now on one particular person, on one particular matter... a Bush stat or info on how a "right" run congress did things so bad would not be a valid answer on that specific question.

Sack

eg8r
02-15-2008, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed,
do you ever get things straight?
<hr /></blockquote> Blah blah blah blah. You are going to tell me about Dems cutting earmarks but when we look at our Presidential candidates the roles are reversed.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, What I have whined about, as you put it, is that neither Bush, or any other republican politican, or pundit, said a damned thing about earmarks while the Republicans were having a field day, <hr /></blockquote> It looks like during that same amount of time Hillary was having quite a field day herself.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, if Hillary's comparison to Obama is fair, it should be averaged according to the time span involved. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, Dems picking on Dems that is hilarious. How about...We don't care. In this election the Dems are the abusers of the earmarks, plain and simple. Twist all you want the numbers constantly straighten you out.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your last nasty comment, I'd love to go into that, but I'm not going to say anything about it.

<hr /></blockquote> Is this post exactly what you said you won't do...say anything about it?

eg8r

eg8r
02-15-2008, 08:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In last years spending, she had four times the amount compared to Obama--- just to give you the fair comparison. <hr /></blockquote> Sack, sad to say she is not listening. Hillary is her pick because she is a woman. The problem is that Gayle does not see the strings that keep pulling Hillary's arms up and down.

[ QUOTE ]
All I did know what then when you hear about a republican securing such funds, the left here talks about it as a horrible waste of our money. All I'm looking for is the same consideration be given to ALL congress on that particular matter at hand... which is something we obviously haven't had here as the topic of earmarks had been silent suddenly until now.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are exactly correct. And what is Gayles argument, well, well, we need to look at the same time period between Obama and Clinton to be fair. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What a riot. She has decided to not speak out against the gross abuse of those two compared to the Rep counterpart in this election.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Dems being the ones cutting earmarks, I found the following in the same article from the NY times:

"Democrats won control of the House in 2006 with promises to end the Republican “culture of corruption.”...
"The White House says Congress earmarked nearly $17 billion for more than 11,700 projects in the current fiscal year. About 40 percent of the money was for items requested by Republicans."
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, so 60% was for items requested by Dems. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Kind of makes you wonder if the cuts by the Dems that Gayle is so proud of were just cutting out the Reps earmarks, not their own.

One thing you have to remember about a Dem bragging about a cut, it is never a true cut. For example (you are the Rep and your wife/girlfriend is a Dem), if you are already spending $1,000 per year at a specific store and decide that this next year you are going to up that number by $500 you would have a proposed budget of $1,500 for the next year. Noticed I said proposed, this is because you have not finalized anything, the $1500 has not been spent yet, and you still need to talk the budget over with your wife/girlfriend. Well, if your wife/girlfriend decided to take over your money and reduce that $500 to $300 she would tell you that she cut your spending by $200. This is the BS Dem logic. An actual cut in spending would have been to make the next years budget $800 but the Dems don't believe in reality.

eg8r

LWW
02-16-2008, 05:22 AM
And even more telling is that they know to a certainty that their sheeple will accept on faith the idea that spending was in fact cut 20% and ignore anyone who did the math as you did trying to explain that they had been lied to.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-26-2008, 12:10 PM
Ed,
Earmark spending was reduced by the Democratic Congress, as compared to the Republican Congress.

Bush, never said a damned thing about spending until his party lost the majority. Then he suddenly found his long lost veto pen.

The party in majority always gets more earmarks through, but one cannot compare one party to the other unless they look at the totals spent in earmarks, over the same amount of time. After one party has been in majority for a long time, such as we saw with years of Republicans in the majority, the minority party has an overall deficit in comparison.

The more I read your posts, the more obvious it becomes that you have no clue about how government works. A Reduction in earmark spending, is just that. Republicans spent much more, period, since the overall amount spent in earmarks was reduced by the Democratic majority.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
02-26-2008, 02:14 PM
The million... or billion... dollar question is whether or not a democratic congress is REALLY reducing such spending, or would it just so happen to appear that way as they do away with earmarks from the republicans. I guess only time will tell over the next few years whether or not they will actually do it or just spend on their own agendas. My guess, based on looking at things, is that eventually they will spend just as wastefully as anyone else. Then we'll be having this same discussion in reverse, and repeat process over again. JMHO

Sack

eg8r
02-26-2008, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but one cannot compare one party to the other unless they look at the totals spent in earmarks</div></div> I believe you were wanting to compare hillary and Obama not different parties.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reduction in earmark spending, is just that. </div></div> I already explained the dem thinking when they begin touting a reduction in anything. They never really reduce anything.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-27-2008, 08:48 AM
Ed,
You will find that there are a number of Republicans who spent more money for earmarks than Hillary. Any interest in comparing the justifications between Hillary's, and theirs?

Corruption is the central problem in our government. It exists in both parties, and nothing will ever change that until Americans educate themselves on the issues. Our biggest economic problem at this time is the war, our Trade deficits, and the price of oil. Had we moved in a different direction back in two thousand, this country could have been in great shape by now, but half the country got side tracked on private issues, and hence, no progress has been achieved in freeing ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, or addressing the corruption that exists in our society.

The corporate fascists, the Military Industrial Complex, along with agressive, pre-emptive, neocon war mongering policies, and the failure of this administration to address the devastating consequences of our trade deficits, and military spending, resulting in massive debt, is of far greater importance than reducing earmarks. Although stricter oversight on spending is a must, which Democrats have been addressing, it is far from the most important issue to address. If one begins to track down where most wasteful earmarks go, one would find that the money largely ends up in the hands of the contractors who manufacture arms and supplies to the military. This country has been overtaken by fascists, and is no longer a true democarcy.

We should be demanding civilian oversight within the halls of our congress, and restore the principle of the fairness doctrine in the media.

When a large segment of society refuses to draw the realistic conclusions between oil men in the White House, the lies they told which led to and un-necessary war in the heart of oil country. When the public refuses to address the idiocy of subsidies for big oil companies, as they rack up the highest profits in history. When some Americans are content to continue a war which provides no benefits, and in fact increases our threats, and serves the ideology of our enemies, the greatest problem lies within the ignorance of those who do not educate themselves on the issues, but run to vote according to their religious doctrine, rather than according to what is best for the country.

Earmarks are the last of my worries, although they should definitely be illegal, and in fact, that is the only way out of this corrupt system which Eisenhower saw coming over forty five-years ago. Had we listened to him, about the military industrial complex, and to Jimmy Carter, regarding energy and the threat of continuing head long into relying on foreign fossil fuels, instead of using our circumstances to create independence, and jobs to achieve that independence, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-27-2008, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed,
You will find that there are a number of Republicans who spent more money for earmarks than Hillary. Any interest in comparing the justifications between Hillary's, and theirs?
</div></div> Sure just as long as one of them is running for President.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The corporate fascists,</div></div> You are referring to the same people that Hillary defended in that "vast" 35 years of experience she keeps pining about.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should be demanding civilian oversight within the halls of our congress, and restore the principle of the fairness doctrine in the media.</div></div> I think the fairness doctrine is a bunch of crap.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earmarks are the last of my worries</div></div> As has been said before this is all news to those who have been reading this board for a little while. While the Reps had full control it was a HUGE issue for you and you never cared that it was only 1%. Now that we see between the 3 Presidential candidates the Dems are the biggest abusers you have decided to quit harping on earmarks.

eg8r

DickLeonard
02-28-2008, 03:04 PM
Eg8r as I have pointed out New York has been raped forever. I for one am for no state getting back more that $.50 for every dollar sent to Wahington. Then you would really hear the screaming.

Florida benefits from the New Yorkers moving to Florida and using New York Medicare/Medicad by keeping a mail address in New York. Eliot will get around to that and your son might not have that tuition free CoLLege when he gets there.####