• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks was short-lived

The Giant Noodle

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks — money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest — was short-lived.
Only three days after GOP Senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.
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. Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.
Click to expand...

CONTINUED:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40344219/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
 
This is SOCIALISM!!!! Just for Republicans SELECT causes.
Ohhhhhhh! The Conservatives are AGAINST Earmarks! They are against Gov't handouts!!!!!

MY HAIRY NOODLE ASS!!!! :2mad:

Of course its called something ELSE when its the Conservatives friends!!!!! :badpc:
 
This is why I wish there were ballot initiatives on the federal level. Because you can't trust these ass holes in office to police themselves or to do the right thing.
 
I just ignore when a politician says they will do something about earmarks because it is pure BS. People expect their representatives to bring home the money for them.
 
The Giant Noodle said:

CONTINUED:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40344219/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
Click to expand...

Just to blow a couple holes in your post.

Mind you I am against this all the way and have said so even though the liberals here were all for it but they will be here complaining against earmarks after supporting them when the democratic house supported this.

From your link
House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.
Click to expand...
Meaning while democrats were in control.


But here goes. What is an earmark.

Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."
Click to expand...

Where is this money going?

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department's local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties.
Click to expand...
So 570 million or 1/10 is heading back to his home state. So every black farmer is now a citizen of AZ? Boy we sure have a bunch here in the south? And I didn't know every Indian tribe was rounded up and put into an AZ reservation.
 
Heavy Duty said:
Just to blow a couple holes in your post.

Mind you I am against this all the way and have said so even though the liberals here were all for it but they will be here complaining against earmarks after supporting them when the democratic house supported this.

From your link Meaning while democrats were in control.


But here goes. What is an earmark.



Where is this money going?


So 570 million or 1/10 is heading back to his home state. So every black farmer is now a citizen of AZ? Boy we sure have a bunch here in the south? And I didn't know every Indian tribe was rounded up and put into an AZ reservation.
Click to expand...

Thanks. There's a whole nother thread on the Black farmer/ American Indian reparations when it became known we were going to be paying it. It's not something Kyle did or could have stopped. Liberals on DP were all for it. My thoughts were, Fine pay it, but enough is enough. We have to stop somewhere.
No surprise bend over MSNBC puts a big spin/lie on it to put down Republicans.
Gawd, imagine if Kyle would have been able to even try to stop it? He'd be labled every racist name in the book.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I just ignore when a politician says they will do something about earmarks because it is pure BS. People expect their representatives to bring home the money for them.
Click to expand...

That and its such a small portion of the federal budget that there are bigger fish to fry.
 
Heavy Duty said:
But here goes. What is an earmark.



Where is this money going?


So 570 million or 1/10 is heading back to his home state. So every black farmer is now a citizen of AZ? Boy we sure have a bunch here in the south? And I didn't know every Indian tribe was rounded up and put into an AZ reservation.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one. I don't love Kyl, but on this one, I have his back. How the hell is this an earmark? It is not like he's asking for money to build a bridge for squirels.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
This is SOCIALISM!!!! Just for Republicans SELECT causes.
Ohhhhhhh! The Conservatives are AGAINST Earmarks! They are against Gov't handouts!!!!!

MY HAIRY NOODLE ASS!!!! :2mad:

Of course its called something ELSE when its the Conservatives friends!!!!! :badpc:
Click to expand...

Was the claim against the government legitimate? Why didn't this go to court?
 
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
 
hazlnut said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

But I am sure you would never support Obamacare or any govt health care.:roll:
 
The Giant Noodle said:
This is SOCIALISM!!!! Just for Republicans SELECT causes.
Ohhhhhhh! The Conservatives are AGAINST Earmarks! They are against Gov't handouts!!!!!

MY HAIRY NOODLE ASS!!!! :2mad:

Of course its called something ELSE when its the Conservatives friends!!!!! :badpc:
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Heavy Duty said:
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................
Click to expand...

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.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read up about it because I would hate to make a big fool out of you.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-much-republican-promises.html#post1059127699
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah... earmarks usually get concessions from the receiving party like this. :rolleyes:
 
Heavy Duty said:
Any idiot knows you cannot spend your way out of debt.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Bush supporter should not talking about looking foolish... seriously. Don't use that word.

 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ikari said:
The biggest polluters are also most likely the biggest campaign donators. You really think the Republocrats would act against that? Hell no.
Click to expand...

ask obama's epa

ask cpi and wapo
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

AGREED! the Conserva-Haters need to take a VERY close look at themselves because THEY are Socialistic too! They are actually like M&Ms..... Hard outter Facist shell with a soft chocolate Socialist center ;)
 
The Giant Noodle said:
AGREED! the Conserva-Haters need to take a VERY close look at themselves because THEY are Socialistic too! They are actually like M&Ms..... Hard outter Facist shell with a soft chocolate Socialist center ;)
Click to expand...

Hell yeah they are. Because in the end, both Republican and Democrat want the same thing....total control. I've maintained for quite some time now that the only real difference between R and D is which rights they wish to steal first. But make no bones about it; both are out after our rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom