Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    12-12-10 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    258

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    HYPOCRITES

    1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

    2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
    So after complaining and whining about deficit spending for 8 years what do the democrats and Obama supporters do? Support a govt program that will add................

    A new study by the Lewin Group estimates that 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 at a projected cost to tax payers in excess of $110 billion. This estimate is dramatically higher (578%) than the cost of these subsidies forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prior to the bill's enactment into law. If the new estimate is correct, it would mean that instead of lowering the deficit by $143 billion over ten years--a claim widely touted by proponents of the law-- the legislation would begin adding to the deficit as early as 2015, only one year after major provisions of the law go into effect.

    But I am sure you would never support Obamacare or any govt health care.

  2. #12
    User CharlieK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-15 @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    22

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    This is SOCIALISM!!!! Just for Republicans SELECT causes.
    Ohhhhhhh! The Conservatives are AGAINST Earmarks! They are against Gov't handouts!!!!!

    MY HAIRY NOODLE ASS!!!!

    Of course its called something ELSE when its the Conservatives friends!!!!!
    Socialism?! Come on, he's a politician and what do politicians do best?

    But Socialism? What are you going to do when you have to describe the Real Thing?
    The Political Spectrum Explained

    Actually, I'm not really Libertarian. I'm a 19th Century Jeffersonian, Acton, Liberal. I believe passionately in Individual Liberty, of course.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Referring both to the OP article and Heavy Duty's commentary, post #5:

    The funds secured by Sen. Jon Kyle's for Native American Indian tribes in his state (AZ) is an earmark.

    The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines.
    The $200 million may come under the heading of "a settlement" to prevent future lawsuits by Black farmers and Native American Indians, but the funding was still secured after the bill was approved in the House and right before it came before a vote by the Senate and was subsequently approved.

    Now, Heavy Duty is correct (atleast per the article itself anyway) when he quotes that the appropriations aren't considered an earmark in the Senate. But in the House, apparently it's a different story as neither House Dem Reps' Baucus and Jefferson are dying that they acquired similar funding under the same circumstances in the House.

    Other interesting tidbits:

    I re-read the Republican party's Pledge to America. While it doesn't use the word "earmark" to specify how their party will not tack funding at the end of bills to fund pet projects, they do elude to being honest in how they write, review and approve legislation in Congress, towit:

    Page 2, first paragraph:

    We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
    From the article:

    Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.
    Not sure how long the bill was on the Senate floor before it came to a vote, but it would appear that not only has the transparency and honesty aspect of their Pledge have already been breached, it's possible the Senate Republicans have also abandoned their 3-day waiting period to give all Representatives and citizens time to read the bill before it came to a vote. (see page 5, second to last paragraph and the first paragraph at the top of page 18 of the Pledge for details. Also, notice the wording used here, "No more hiding legislative language from the minority party..." I guess since Republicans are no long the "minority party"...'nuf said).

    There's also the issue of "backdoor deals" and "phantom amendments" that Sen. Kyle brings into question after having "slipped" this measure through. (See page 17, first paragraph of the Pledge).

    So, while Republicans didn't include wording specifically stating they will not accept earmarks in their Pledge, they're leadership, specifically Sen. Boehner and most recently Sen. Mitch McConnell, have both pledged to forego earmarks. In a recent blog post, Boehner and Cantor stated that the GOP conference will vote next week to ban earmarks. In short, earmarks are still on the GOP table for now and depending on next week's vote, they likely could remain.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 11-26-10 at 01:39 PM.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by Heavy Duty View Post
    So after complaining and whining about deficit spending for 8 years what do the democrats and Obama supporters do? Support a govt program that will add................
    Again with the selective history.

    Autobailout - What choice did we have?

    AIG -- caused by Bushies retarded deregulation of the market and inept SEC. -- what choice did we have?

    OIL SPILL -- caused by Bushies people still in MMS.

    TARP -- caused Bushies inept, corrupt regulators.

    The far righties have to work so hard to forget all the corruption and ineptitude that got us here.

    Thank you NEOCONS for running up the debt WHILE driving us into a ditch that we must spend ourselves out of.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    12-12-10 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    258

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Again with the selective history.

    Autobailout - What choice did we have?

    AIG -- caused by Bushies retarded deregulation of the market and inept SEC. -- what choice did we have?

    OIL SPILL -- caused by Bushies people still in MMS.

    TARP -- caused Bushies inept, corrupt regulators.

    The far righties have to work so hard to forget all the corruption and ineptitude that got us here.

    Thank you NEOCONS for running up the debt WHILE driving us into a ditch that we must spend ourselves out of.
    Any idiot knows you cannot spend your way out of debt.

    Oh dont forget the housing market collapse cause by Clinton, Dobbs and Franks.

    Oil spill happened on Obama watch and they ignored then lied about how bad it was.

    You trying to blame TARP on Bush................LOL what fanasty world you live in?

    TARP was truly bipartisan—begun during the Bush administration, and continued under President Obama.
    Maybe you should read up about it because I would hate to make a big fool out of you.

  6. #16
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Referring both to the OP article and Heavy Duty's commentary, post #5:

    The funds secured by Sen. Jon Kyle's for Native American Indian tribes in his state (AZ) is an earmark.



    The $200 million may come under the heading of "a settlement" to prevent future lawsuits by Black farmers and Native American Indians, but the funding was still secured after the bill was approved in the House and right before it came before a vote by the Senate and was subsequently approved.

    Now, Heavy Duty is correct (atleast per the article itself anyway) when he quotes that the appropriations aren't considered an earmark in the Senate. But in the House, apparently it's a different story as neither House Dem Reps' Baucus and Jefferson are dying that they acquired similar funding under the same circumstances in the House.

    Other interesting tidbits:

    I re-read the Republican party's Pledge to America. While it doesn't use the word "earmark" to specify how their party will not tack funding at the end of bills to fund pet projects, they do elude to being honest in how they write, review and approve legislation in Congress, towit:

    Page 2, first paragraph:



    From the article:



    Not sure how long the bill was on the Senate floor before it came to a vote, but it would appear that not only has the transparency and honesty aspect of their Pledge have already been breached, it's possible the Senate Republicans have also abandoned their 3-day waiting period to give all Representatives and citizens time to read the bill before it came to a vote. (see page 5, second to last paragraph and the first paragraph at the top of page 18 of the Pledge for details. Also, notice the wording used here, "No more hiding legislative language from the minority party..." I guess since Republicans are no long the "minority party"...'nuf said).

    There's also the issue of "backdoor deals" and "phantom amendments" that Sen. Kyle brings into question after having "slipped" this measure through. (See page 17, first paragraph of the Pledge).

    So, while Republicans didn't include wording specifically stating they will not accept earmarks in their Pledge, they're leadership, specifically Sen. Boehner and most recently Sen. Mitch McConnell, have both pledged to forego earmarks. In a recent blog post, Boehner and Cantor stated that the GOP conference will vote next week to ban earmarks. In short, earmarks are still on the GOP table for now and depending on next week's vote, they likely could remain.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059127699
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Referring both to the OP article and Heavy Duty's commentary, post #5:

    The funds secured by Sen. Jon Kyle's for Native American Indian tribes in his state (AZ) is an earmark.

    The $200 million may come under the heading of "a settlement" to prevent future lawsuits by Black farmers and Native American Indians, but the funding was still secured after the bill was approved in the House and right before it came before a vote by the Senate and was subsequently approved.
    From the OP article...
    The water system is settlement compensation for numerous abuses by the federal government, which included clearing trees and other vegetation from thousands of acres of tribal lands in order to increase runoff into the Salt River, a source of water for the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and other communities. The tribe also would waive a half-dozen other claims against the government.
    Yeah... earmarks usually get concessions from the receiving party like this.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by Heavy Duty View Post
    Any idiot knows you cannot spend your way out of debt.
    I think only the idiots who didn't finish HS US history...

    Oh dont forget the housing market collapse cause by Clinton, Dobbs and Franks.
    FALSE -- get your facts straight -- stop watching FOX FAKE NEWS and get educated.

    Oil spill happened on Obama watch and they ignored then lied about how bad it was.
    The far-righties should promote you, you regurgitate false talking points very well!

    You trying to blame TARP on Bush................LOL what fanasty world you live in?
    Yeah, you're right, Bush had nothing to do with TARP... except for causing it and signing it.


    Maybe you should read up about it because I would hate to make a big fool out of you.
    Bush supporter should not talking about looking foolish... seriously. Don't use that word.


  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus - The Center for Public Integrity

    In the name of job creation and clean energy, the Obama administration has doled out billions of dollars in stimulus money to some of the nation’s biggest polluters and granted them sweeping exemptions from the most basic form of environmental oversight, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found.

    The administration has awarded more than 179,000 “categorical exclusions” to stimulus projects funded by federal agencies, freeing those projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Coal-burning utilities like Westar Energy and Duke Energy, chemical manufacturer DuPont, and ethanol maker Didion Milling are among the firms with histories of serious environmental violations that have won blanket NEPA exemptions.
    blame bush?

    LOL!

    obama's exemptions for america's biggest polluters, however, is not new

    remember bp?

    U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

    buy a tv

  10. #20
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Not so much of a surprise, eh? Of course the Republicans aren't actually against ear marks. They just like to sound like they are. No one in Congress (barring a select few) have the balls to do what they say. In the end, the vast majority merely act in support and proliferation of the status quo.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •