Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) attached the earmark to the Labor-HHS Education appropriations bill that would have given $1 million in taxpayer money to a Woodstock concert museum in Bethel, New York -- which recently hosted an event called "HIPPIEFEST."
Hillary's hippie museum earmark sparks outrage (OneNewsNow.com) (broken link)
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) attached the earmark to the Labor-HHS Education appropriations bill that would have given $1 million in taxpayer money to a Woodstock concert museum in Bethel, New York -- which recently hosted an event called "HIPPIEFEST."
Hillary's hippie museum earmark sparks outrage (OneNewsNow.com) (broken link)
I think it'd be a pretty cool museum and addition to Bethel, but I don't really think it's worth the $1 million dollars... plenty of better things to be spending the money on.
I think it'd be a pretty cool museum and addition to Bethel, but I don't really think it's worth the $1 million dollars... plenty of better things to be spending the money on.
Definitely best left to the State of NY, or private funding.
I tell you,I love Hendrix,Santana and others,hell I look like a hippie!,but this is something people are suppose to donate to,not use tax money.This is a perfect example where believing in government redistribution of wealth is wrong because once again we see they misuse it.
I hate Hillary, but attacking her for a relatively small earmark meant to produce jobs and improve the economy in NY state is silly. I doubt there is one senator who didn't have some sort of pet project. Actually, there is usually little wrong with them. A Senator, prob. on advice of a constituitents letter, deemed it necessary to put a new building on the Land Grant campus, or build a new museum or bridge. Earmarks are actually good ways oof getting federal money allocated to where it is best used. Hillary was simply doing what she was elected to do, help the State of New York. Like it or not, a museum in a small town is a great economic help. Every state and every senator has a project, you prob. live near one. A million dollar earmark is a pitance, nothing. If you spend a million, and produce 3 jobs that pay a good living for the next 50 years, isn't that a good investment for the governemnt to make. That person will pay back taxes, support the consumer economy, keep a smaller town viable, and raise a family. Eventually, the governemtn will see every dime of it back. But something that doesn't make a good story, doesn't make a good candidate. Right?
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) attached the earmark to the Labor-HHS Education appropriations bill that would have given $1 million in taxpayer money to a Woodstock concert museum in Bethel, New York -- which recently hosted an event called "HIPPIEFEST."
Hillary's hippie museum earmark sparks outrage (OneNewsNow.com) (broken link)
I tell you,I love Hendrix,Santana and others,hell I look like a hippie!,but this is something people are suppose to donate to,not use tax money.This is a perfect example where believing in government redistribution of wealth is wrong because once again we see they misuse it.
I have to agree with your sentiments------never mind that Woodstock was an iconic event in US history for better or worse.
I hate Hillary, but attacking her for a relatively small earmark meant to produce jobs and improve the economy in NY state is silly. I doubt there is one senator who didn't have some sort of pet project. Actually, there is usually little wrong with them. A Senator, prob. on advice of a constituitents letter, deemed it necessary to put a new building on the Land Grant campus, or build a new museum or bridge. Earmarks are actually good ways oof getting federal money allocated to where it is best used. Hillary was simply doing what she was elected to do, help the State of New York. Like it or not, a museum in a small town is a great economic help. Every state and every senator has a project, you prob. live near one. A million dollar earmark is a pitance, nothing. If you spend a million, and produce 3 jobs that pay a good living for the next 50 years, isn't that a good investment for the governemnt to make. That person will pay back taxes, support the consumer economy, keep a smaller town viable, and raise a family. Eventually, the governemtn will see every dime of it back. But something that doesn't make a good story, doesn't make a good candidate. Right?
Wrong... it's spitting on the Constitution. She's not the only one, but it's not a power granted to the Congress under the Constitution. I don't care if it was 1 million dollars to build more beds for sick children, it's not the job of the federal government.
I can't single her out, 100 wrongs don't make a right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
