PDA

View Full Version : "Earmarks are only 1% of the budget..."



sack316
02-22-2008, 11:45 PM
First, Gayle I realize this seems to point straight at you, but I'd like to clarify that I'm not making a specific thread intended to "call you out". It's just that I've seen that stat posted by yourself in several different threads, and wasn't sure which would be the best to reply in. Thus I simply created a new thread. now that that's out of the way on to my point...

Indeed I agree that it sounds like a pretty trivial amount when looked at as being "Only 1%". In fact I really don't know how much of the budget does go there, could be more or could be less for all I know. But for the sake of this, I'll go ahead and assume that 1% would be a good estimate.

BUT, when you look at that measly 1% as being the $10,750,000,000 that, by my estimations, comprises only 1% of the budget...well that just doesn't sound like small potatos to me. Granted there are other (many other) wastes that go on that we are spending, but for this particular matter I can't see how one can justify that spending because it's only one percent... and at the same time criticize other spending be it wasteful or not when what seems to be the gneral concensus on earmarks is that it is indeed wasteful.

It's like a completely broke person coming into a hundred bucks, and then spending one dollar on something completely unnecessary. Sure that $1 didn't take much of a bite out of that $100, but it surely would have been more useful were it used another way... if at all.

Anyway, just my thought on that and wanted to put a real value on what "only 1%" actually is. in the grand scheme of things $10,750,000,000 isn't really that much when it comes to our government spending... but that sure could be a lot to our education system, our poor, or our (insert any just cause here).

Sack

eg8r
02-23-2008, 09:35 PM
Sack the only time Gayle has ever mentioned that earmarks are no big deal and are "ONLY 1%" is when it was pointed out that her preferred candidate is the biggest abuser of all three by far.

Don't let her change of opinion sway anything. Up until earmark abusing hillary was shown out on this board Gayle was doing her best to keep that just as quiet as possible.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-26-2008, 10:18 AM
Sack,
The money that goes toward earmarks is spent on many things, as I'm sure you know. I've never believed that that money should be spent in foolish ways, however, we do have to spend something to run this country, and some of that money is spent on projects which benefit American Citizens, in one way or other.

Eg likes to convolute everything I write about, but we all know that Republicans set records on spending, and particullarly by using earmarks. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Democrats have reduced earmarks, a fact which Eg likes to completely ignore.

As for how our government spends our money, I can think of no time in our history when so much money has been spent, lost, wasted and borrowed, un-necerssarily, and on policies which are destructive to the best interests of the United States Of America, or have resulted in such grand scale destruction and devastation to our nation, as during the last Republican led Congress, and during the Bush Administration. I know of absolutely no advantage to our country which as resulted in having squandered ten trillion dollars in the Middle East. All things considered, earmarks are the last of my concerns about America's present circumstances.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-26-2008, 11:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eg likes to convolute everything I write about, but we all know that Republicans set records on spending, and particullarly by using earmarks. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Democrats have reduced earmarks, a fact which Eg likes to completely ignore.</div></div>I am not ignoring anything, I am only talking about 3 candidates who are most likely the group to choose from to run this country. The two dems are the biggest abusers.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-26-2008, 11:31 AM
LOL, yeah, lets just keep the Republican spendaholics out of the discussion entirely, right Ed? We're discussing earmarks. That's the title of the thread. We're discussing spending, n9ot Hillary.

I have stated before, that IMO, earmarks should not be allowed at all. In fact, I have written that every bill should be clean, without earmarks, or anything else added, regardless of which party is in majority. Either way, use of earmarks is a poor point from which to make a choice for president, in the whole scheme of things, IMO, and has little or nothing to do with the subject of this thread. However, if one wishes to study the use of earmarks, the last Republican led Congress would be an excellent place to start.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-26-2008, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, yeah, lets just keep the Republican spendaholics out of the discussion entirely, right Ed? </div></div> We can talk about them, which ones are running for President right now? Oh yeah, follow the discussions, no one has ever said anything about using earmarks as a reason for choosing a President. They are a good way to see how poorly a candidate can handle the money though.

eg8r