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.
Obviously you're a fan of right wing propaganda and buzzwords resonate with you...the "mouse in a marsh" is a wetlands project, in real life. As for the 9000 earmarks,
Experts agree that most earmarks are legitimate. Cary Leahey, senior economist with Decision Economics in New York, said the nation's economic crisis is a contributing factor to the plethora of earmarks. Lawmakers can argue that for a relatively small price they've helped boost the economy.
"One congressman's earmark is another legislative way to fix a serious problem in his district," Leahey said.
***
Democrats have been trying to revamp the earmark process for about two years. In 2007, they instituted a system that required members to explain the contents of each earmark, as well as a justification for why it was included in the legislation that way. They claimed this led to a reduction in earmarks by as much as 43 percent.
***
Several experts believe that dramatically reducing the number of earmarks, while a laudable goal, is almost impossible. But others contend that earmarks aren't that big of a problem.
"Earmarks get more attention than they deserve," said MacGuineas. "The problem is that they cause a loss of confidence in the whole budget process."
Earmark reform? 2009 spending bill contains 9,000 of them - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/916134.html - broken link)
First, as for the so called "buzz words" does that make it untrue? Nope it doesn't. I notice you didn't mention the train from CA to NV. I'm not saying it's illegal or anything just that it's not needed pork to benefit the few as in Pelosi and company and if that train was such a good idea then why write it in at the last minute? Why not submit it to stand on it's own accord?
As for earmarks, it floors me when you gleefully point to a 43% reduction and act like that's the be all end all. So, they've reduced the pork and theft by 43% but there's still 57% that's going on right?
One of the problems with earmarks is they get attached to things that have nothing to do with the earmark and generally are not read by anyone or if they are can kill an otherwise good bill.
I don't know about you but when someone slips something in to a non related bill attempting to slide it by smacks of deceit to me. If the earmark is that good or that important it should stand on it's own merit don't you think.
BTW, didn't someone... Oh I don't know maybe it was Obama promise to get rid of earmarks? I thought he did but maybe I misheard him...
Well, by your definition any spending is "pork" so there's no room for discussion.
You're in an extreme minority and most support a bill that
1. creates jobs (not trying to take over the private sector, but just to get people working on necessary infrastructure only the government can build)
2. Provides extended benefits and funding to soften the blow until the markets can correct themselves.
Not all spending is pork, never said that.
1. How is a bullet train necessary infrastructure? How about the marshland to protect a mouse?
Now if you said to rebuild bridges and roads that are failing (there are plenty of 'em btw) I couldn't disagree or repair and upgrade water treatment plants or put power lines underground or upgrade the power grid well that's something to talk about and do.
2.Building a train (Gamblers express) from Los Angeles to Las Vegas or working to save marsh does nothing to soften anything but the perception of how the people who paid to put those people in office think about those officials.
It's called payback for getting 'em elected to office and pure oink oink...
Why do you believe spending on automobile infrastructure - which has destroyed our cities, consumed our farmland, and forced our nation to depend on oil and consume the most land / person in the world - is a wiser investment than high speed mass transit that can connect a nation?
It's only wise to help get people out of their cars and provide alternatives.
You've just confirmed what 'the other side' has been saying for months. McCain, the GOP, et al, picked Palin because in their opinion men who make important decisions with their 'other' head would vote for their ticket if she was on it.
The only thing Joe was trying to do during that debate, IMHO the wrong thind, was to not handle the 'special girl in school' the way he would any other politician. The Dems didn't want to lose votes because Joe was mean to the 'special girl'.
You've just confirmed what 'the other side' has been saying for months. McCain, the GOP, et al, picked Palin because in their opinion men who make important decisions with their 'other' head would vote for their ticket if she was on it.
To be strictly accurate, it was the GOP who picked Palin, not McCain. He saw what was coming, and he didn't want her on the ticket. But the party wasn't asking for his thoughts on the matter, went ahead and selected Palin, and the rest is history.
quote=Siouxcia;7623672You've just confirmed what 'the other side' has been saying for months. McCain, the GOP, et al, picked Palin because in their opinion men who make important decisions with their 'other' head would vote for their ticket if she was on it.
There are plenty who would, no doubt.
Just as there are many who would vote for their candidate because it would allow them to say "Look at me, I voted for a black person."
Quote:
The only thing Joe was trying to do during that debate, IMHO the wrong thind, was to not handle the 'special girl in school' the way he would any other politician. The Dems didn't want to lose votes because Joe was mean to the 'special girl'.
Speaking as a person who often thinks with the other head. You're incorrect.
Seriously, what else could he say? He was nice and said the most obvious, friendly thing that came to mind.
He wasn't "smitten" as you claimed.
How do you know that he wasn't smitten?
I can say that as a man, there are few men out there who didn't think she was beautiful.
Except, obviously the gay gentlemen on this thread.
Just as there are many who would vote for their candidate because it would allow them to say "Look at me, I voted for a black person."
Speaking as a person who often thinks with the other head. You're incorrect.
GOP men and women constantly talk about Palin's looks. There are as many who think she looks ok as there are those who think she's pretty or those who think she's homely. I guess when she opened the door to her hotel room and invited the Secret Service in wearing only a towel she was trying to change one of their minds? WTF does being pretty/ugly/or average have to do with her abilities as a VP or VPOTUS? She opened her mouth and proved to the people who were looking for a leader, not a beauty queen, that she knows nothing of these United States beyond the borders of Alaska and even here she has peripheral vision.
The woman gives you a woody, ok we get it! But, you're assumption that all (straight) men respond to her the way you do is plain wrong.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Now lets see what happens considering the plummeting price of oil.Thats how Alaska stays afloat,now what?
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.
