obama's earmarks

[eskimo2]

I think it was McCain who convinced Palin (when they first met) that earmarks were on their way out.  Since then Palin has been anti-earmark.

[lazs2]

so crock-it..  we shouldn't give any money to Israel.. or.. more to the point.. osamabinbiden will cut them off?

getting rid of earmarks is fine..  get rid of unfunded government mandates too tho.

lazs

[crockett]

I think it was McCain who convinced Palin (when they first met) that earmarks were on their way out.  Since then Palin has been anti-earmark.

Well if she changed then good for her but she's still running around claiming a bunch of BS on her past in regard to earmark money. If she can't tell the truth about what has a public record, then how can anyone trust her for what she claims she will do in the future?

[crockett]

so crock-it..  we shouldn't give any money to Israel.. or.. more to the point.. osamabinbiden will cut them off?

getting rid of earmarks is fine..  get rid of unfunded government mandates too tho.

lazs

Where did you get that I said we shouldn't give Israel money or that Obama would cut them? Israel was brought up because they are the biggest recipient of our federal earmark money. It was brought up to show that there is no possible way McCain can cut 100's of billions a year in "wasteful" earmark spending.

Did you watch the video I posted?

[Hangtime]

You are proving my point.. the entire time we have been giving Israel aid money the total over the years is 52 to 60 billion. So as you say 2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket yet Israel is one of the biggest repaints of out foreign aid money which is considered a earmark.  So where exactly is McCain going to cut the other $197.5 billion dollars..  

Like I said he's talking a bunch of bull cocky. But wait I guess he still needs to find the full 200 billion because he's not even going to cut the aid to Israel.

As I said the only place he could cut that much money is to severally cut defense spending and even then it would be hard pressed to find 100 billion much less 200 or "hundreds of billions" that was wasteful spending.

Crookitt, yah just don't get it.

McCain wants an end to earmarks.. if Israel gets aid, lets vote 'em aid... not slip it to 'em under the table like a damn dope deal. It's about getting rid of the crummy trick of tacking on and writing in of pet project allocations on existing bills.

If the EPA wants money to do another study on the molting of piping plovers in a windmill zone, lets vote on it....

Earmarks lead to run-amok bureaucracy and Corporate Kickbacks. This is the lobby disease. It's Corruption of the Government By The People.. McCain has correctly identified it's threat to honest government and has proposed legislation that ends the practice.

It's a bi-partisan issue. You might wanna check and see how Obama and Mrs. Klinton voted on McCains Bill.

Your objection is ludicrous.

[eskimo2]

Well if she changed then good for her but she's still running around claiming a bunch of BS on her past in regard to earmark money. If she can't tell the truth about what has a public record then how can anyone trust her for what she claims she will do?

Which earmarks and when?  And, what is she claiming that goes against public record? 

[lazs2]

none of you guys has answered me...

How does a community of 3-20 thousand afford a 40 million dollar treatment plant expansion?  how do they afford to do the studies that prove it is a waste?  How do they afford the thousand dollar a day fine for not doing it?

How do they afford 3 million dollar handicaped ramps at every corner even tho they don't even had sidewalks at every corner.. not to mention.. maybe no or one person who is a citizen using a wheelchair?

How do the afford all these unfunded mandates?

Are you all saying that we should get rid of grants (earmarks) and the staff that work for cities to get them?

I would agree.. but.. we would have to get rid of the unfunded mandates first.

lazs

[Hangtime]

Like the border fence?

[bj229r]

One thing that's always confronted me about earmarks--Fed TAKES money from YOUR state, (YOUR PAYcheck) gives it to some OTHER state who has more influence in DC. It can be viewed as getting OUR (insert your state here) money back (only up to a point) from the money-grubbing whooores in Congress. Doesn't amuse me  living in VA, and having money confiscated from my check to pay for a @#%%@#%#@ homeless shelter in San FranTHISco for illegal Mexicans

[lazs2]

I don't know hang..  if it is the governments job to protect the borders and they think we need a fence then it should be the feds who foot the bill.

My opinion is.. as it has always been. you will only stop about 30% of the problem with a fence but..

You will end 99.9999% if you simply have an instant background check for employment (hey.. they sure as hell can do it for me to buy a simple handgun) 

have the check.. if he passes.. hire him.... if he doesn't and you hire him anyway..  when you get caught.. you go to prison for a mandatory 1 year term.

no schools or hospitals other than emergency for illegals.. no becoming a citizen by birth unless at least one of your parents is a citizen.

end of problem..  the fence and border patrol would then be there to stop bad guys.

lazs

[crockett]

Which earmarks and when?  And, what is she claiming that goes against public record? 

She claims she was against the bridge to no where and told congress she didn't want the money and all that hoopla she's runs around claiming on TV.

The fact is she was for the bridge to nowhere while she was Mayor and running for Governor. When it because a national media sceptical she then came out against it. However she still later took the money and used it else where, so her claims about giving the money back are BS.

In short she was for it, before she was against it, then she still took the money after she was against it and now claims she gave it back. The money didn't get used on the bridge to no where but the money did get used. What it was used on I really don't care nor do I plan to look up. If it was used for legit spending or not I have no clue.

However if she said, "hey I took that money that was going to get used for a useless bridge and sent it in the right places" then I'd say good for her. The deal is she isn't saying that she's claiming she sent the money back and that is a out right lie.

Her exact quote...

""I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics' dismissive name of the project. "'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'"

The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on Gravina Island, which had a population of 50 in the 2000 U.S. Census. After McCain and others railed against it, Congress dropped the specific earmark but kept the money in a transportation bill for Alaska.

quote are from...  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

If you don't like the source just search on google there are many more saying the same thing. The point is she is out right lying about giving the money back she still accepted it in another bill and it wasn't even her that turned it down it was because McCain complained about it.

[crockett]

none of you guys has answered me...

How does a community of 3-20 thousand afford a 40 million dollar treatment plant expansion?  how do they afford to do the studies that prove it is a waste?  How do they afford the thousand dollar a day fine for not doing it?

How do they afford 3 million dollar handicaped ramps at every corner even tho they don't even had sidewalks at every corner.. not to mention.. maybe no or one person who is a citizen using a wheelchair?

How do the afford all these unfunded mandates?

Are you all saying that we should get rid of grants (earmarks) and the staff that work for cities to get them?

I would agree.. but.. we would have to get rid of the unfunded mandates first.

lazs

No this is the right use for Federal earmarks.. Take for instance with Palin some of the earmark money she received as mayor was spent on just that, repairing the city sewers. I don't know the exact details but if it was repairs were a major cost that the city couldn't afford then that's the right use of federal earmark money. If the city could have afforded it then it would be wasteful use of the federal money.

Earmarks serve a legit purpose but they are often abused but there just isn't 100's of billions in abuse, that McCain can cut with out getting into defense spending and so on.

[Hangtime]

so... she redirected the funds earmarked in that bill to other Alaska transportation projects. She didn't slip it into her pocket, she used it for what the bill provided funding for. Transportation Projects.

Your point is what? She spent the money she was supposed to spend, provided by the feds for transportation infrastructure, new construction and maintenance? Your state gets those moneys too, Corkdick.  

[Hangtime]

Earmarks serve a legit purpose but they are often abused but there just isn't 100's of billions in abuse, that McCain can cut with out getting into defense spending and so on.

So, Why did Hillary and Obama vote YES on McCains bill this spring?

LOL... OWNED.

[sluggish]

She claims she was against the bridge to no where and told congress she didn't want the money and all that hoopla she's runs around claiming on TV.

The fact is she was for the bridge to nowhere while she was Mayor and running for Governor. When it because a national media sceptical she then came out against it. However she still later took the money and used it else where, so her claims about giving the money back are BS.

In short she was for it, before she was against it, then she still took the money after she was against it and now claims she gave it back. The money didn't get used on the bridge to no where but the money did get used. What it was used on I really don't care nor do I plan to look up. If it was used for legit spending or not I have no clue.

However if she said, "hey I took that money that was going to get used for a useless bridge and sent it in the right places" then I'd say good for her. The deal is she isn't saying that she's claiming she sent the money back and that is a out right lie.

Her exact quote...

""I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics' dismissive name of the project. "'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'"

The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on Gravina Island, which had a population of 50 in the 2000 U.S. Census. After McCain and others railed against it, Congress dropped the specific earmark but kept the money in a transportation bill for Alaska.

quote are from...  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

If you don't like the source just search on google there are many more saying the same thing. The point is she is out right lying about giving the money back she still accepted it in another bill and it wasn't even her that turned it down it was because McCain complained about it.

Sorry crock.  Nowhere in that quote does she say she sent the money back.