# Obama's cap & trade policy--est. $2000 more per year per household in electric costs!



## oreo

As promised by Obama--he plans to bankrupt the coal industry in this country--by imposing a cap & trade on existing coal power plants.

Estimates are that this policy will cost the average home an additional *$2000.00* per year in electric costs.

Now--since we are basically the only country in the world that will be adopting this policy.  _Obama needs to figure out how to keep our air over the United States, instead of wandering off to other countries._ If we're real lucky maybe mother earth will decide not to do a global melt around our shores?

_You voted for it--You got it!_


----------



## KMAN

Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year


----------



## Mad Scientist

As a Conservative, I believe this is a good thing. The poor need to be kept down, and whatever the government can do to ensure that, I agree with.
We rich people will merely have to shuffle a bit of our fortunes around to make up the difference. While the poor, who can't pay up, will have no recourse but to commit crimes or ask the government for assistance, thus enslaving them further.

Bwahahahahahaha!!


----------



## Shogun

in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!


----------



## Iriemon

KMAN said:


> Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year



OTOH, the $366 billion in annual revenues it would raise goes along way cutting down the deficit the conservatives are concerned about.

Incentivizing less pollution, cleaner air, probably less oil dependence, while putting a huge dent in the deficits.

What exactly is wrong with this picture?


----------



## Iriemon

Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html

Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html
> 
> Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?



DUMB ASS. Already posted the You tube and the voice copy of Obama telling people in California he INTENDS TO BANKRUPT the coal fired plants and that he WANTS electricity to cost A LOT more so only the rich can afford it. Ohh he would have the Government subsidize the poor though, but SCREW the middle Class.

Almost 60 percent of our electricity comes from COAL, you RETARD. If he doubles and triples the operating costs of those plants Electricity will double and triple to, or do you not have4 a basic understanding of how the real world works?

He further , in those linked sites, stated he wants to drive the cost of Natural gas and Gasoline so high only the rich can afford it. That accounts for even more of our electricity generations.

And for some economic lessons, what do you think all the Corporations and Businesses will do when THEIR electricity doubles and triples? Not only we get hit with outrages electric bills but every damn thing we buy will cost 2 or 3 times more.

GOOD GOD you people are FUCKING MORONS.


----------



## dilloduck

Iriemon said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, the $366 billion in annual revenues it would raise goes along way cutting down the deficit the conservatives are concerned about.
> 
> Incentivizing less pollution, cleaner air, probably less oil dependence, while putting a huge dent in the deficits.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...


only that it won't work.


----------



## MaggieMae

Iriemon said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, the $366 billion in annual revenues it would raise goes along way cutting down the deficit the conservatives are concerned about.
> 
> Incentivizing less pollution, cleaner air, probably less oil dependence, while putting a huge dent in the deficits.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...


I don't believe the cap & trade thing will fly. It *IS* a costly proposal, and in my opinion, wide open for Moon-sized [loop]holes. But the best reason to nix this particular proposal is that it won't be enough to reduce the carbon levels anyway. 

Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com


----------



## Iriemon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html
> 
> Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB ASS. ...
> 
> FUCKING MORONS ....
Click to expand...


Are you really Walter?  LOL


----------



## amrchaos

Iriemon said:


> Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html
> 
> Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?




how about an additional $11,000 tax on households?

The Hill Blog» Blog Archive » The Coming $11,000 per Household Tax Increase


Do I hear $15,000


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html
> 
> Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB ASS. ...
> 
> FUCKING MORONS ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really Walter?  LOL
Click to expand...


Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.

Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.


----------



## WillowTree

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.  But KMAN's got you beat.  He's got an article saying it's going to cost $3,900 per household.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/74616-cap-and-trade-may-cost-households-3-900-a-year.html
> 
> Do I hear $5000, anyone have $5000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB ASS. Already posted the You tube and the voice copy of Obama telling people in California he INTENDS TO BANKRUPT the coal fired plants and that he WANTS electricity to cost A LOT more so only the rich can afford it. Ohh he would have the Government subsidize the poor though, but SCREW the middle Class.
> 
> Almost 60 percent of our electricity comes from COAL, you RETARD. If he doubles and triples the operating costs of those plants Electricity will double and triple to, or do you not have4 a basic understanding of how the real world works?
> 
> He further , in those linked sites, stated he wants to drive the cost of Natural gas and Gasoline so high only the rich can afford it. That accounts for even more of our electricity generations.
> 
> And for some economic lessons, what do you think all the Corporations and Businesses will do when THEIR electricity doubles and triples? Not only we get hit with outrages electric bills but every damn thing we buy will cost 2 or 3 times more.
> 
> *GOOD GOD you people are FUCKING MORONS.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> and gullible as hell!
Click to expand...


----------



## Iriemon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB ASS. ...
> 
> FUCKING MORONS ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really Walter?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
Click to expand...



Walter!  It is you!  "Welcome to Walmart.  Get yer shit and get out!"  LMAO!  You're my fav.  : )


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really Walter?  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walter!  It is you!  "Welcome to Walmart.  Get yer shit and get out!"  LMAO!  You're my fav.  : )
Click to expand...


You are denying what exactly? Or just ignoring the fact your to FUCKING STUPID to know how reality works?


----------



## KMAN

What's funny is half the people in this country can't even take care of themselves yet we are going to save the planet....LOL


----------



## Skull Pilot

Shogun said:


> in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!



As a follow up, we will spotlight the 5000000 jobs that are being moved offshore because it's too expensive to operate in the US.


----------



## KMAN

Why is it liberals never provide any logical talking points on the subject at hand????  They either call you a name or compare it to something else that is totally unrelated, or change the subject...


----------



## Sinatra

Skull Pilot said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a follow up, we will spotlight the 5000000 jobs that are being moved offshore because it's too expensive to operate in the US.
Click to expand...



Damn right.

Between the enviro movement, tax code, and unions, its getting too damn expensive to do business in this country.


----------



## Skull Pilot

KMAN said:


> Why is it liberals never provide any logical talking points on the subject at hand????  They either call you a name or compare it to something else that is totally unrelated, or change the subject...



the liberal argument for everything is

"Bush Sucks"

"You don't like Obama so you must like Bush and Bush Sucks"

"You didn't complain about Bush(even if we did) and Bush sucks"

Oh yeah and Bush Sucks


----------



## Meister

Those that are in the tank for "Cap & Trade", are not looking at the whole picture.  I cannot believe that you people can think that this is a good thing in the long run.  The fee's and price increase of products, is OK with you people?  Loss of jobs, and out sourcing of jobs is OK with you people?  Barry's administration has really got your people brainwashed.  You will accept anybody, and everything that they shove down our throats, just as long as a democrat made it so.  You people have no clue...and that's the sad part of this.  At least, that's not mainstream America, and quite possibly there will be a turn of events in the next election to have a check on this administration.


----------



## Indiana Oracle

The colossally ruinuous, misguided and unneccesary CAT idea is: 

1) probably DOA in the Congress (thank goodness); 

2) wildly out of step with the rest of the world which is rushing headlong into nuclear; and

3) looks like nothing more than a way to tax the public to fund junior's out-year social spending agenda.

The Prophet, narcissist social worker from the Chicago political machine, will stop at nothing and illustrates his disdain for the common American citizen with nearly all of his initiatives.


----------



## Iriemon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walter!  It is you!  "Welcome to Walmart.  Get yer shit and get out!"  LMAO!  You're my fav.  : )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are denying what exactly? Or just ignoring the fact your to FUCKING STUPID to know how reality works?
Click to expand...


Nah, just having a little fun with your style.  Every watch Jeff Dunham?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MpGOPqROg&feature=fvsr[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IAGJK-hR6o&feature=fvsr[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w88MLvC8fE&feature=fvsr[/ame]

If you really want a response to your posts, write them without the infantile name calling.  Then I'll be happy to discuss.


----------



## Newby

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB ASS. ...
> 
> FUCKING MORONS ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really Walter?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
Click to expand...



She's a partisan idiot, and she proves it every time she posts.  Not only that, I'd like her to explain how this is going to help pay down the deficit?


----------



## Newby

Meister said:


> Those that are in the tank for "Cap & Trade", are not looking at the whole picture.  I cannot believe that you people can think that this is a good thing in the long run.  The fee's and price increase of products, is OK with you people?  Loss of jobs, and out sourcing of jobs is OK with you people?  Barry's administration has really got your people brainwashed.  You will accept anybody, and everything that they shove down our throats, just as long as a democrat made it so.  You people have no clue...and that's the sad part of this.  At least, that's not mainstream America, and quite possibly there will be a turn of events in the next election to have a check on this administration.



  Great post, and I pray that you are right about the next election cycle, or more people wake up from this comatose Obama state they're in.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really Walter?  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She's a partisan idiot, ...
Click to expand...


Ignored.


----------



## DC42

This is such a Horrible thing!!! Obama wants to find other means of supplying energy!!! Besides, coal plants only produce 73% of the CO2 emmited in the atmosphere!!! Oh yea, building nuclear and hydroelectric power plants will only create millions of jobs nationwide!!! Oh yea, I live in the south and everything here is run by nuclear or hydro electric power plants---Oh yea, our electric bills are lower than anyones in the country!!!! 

By the way, because of this....a nuclear power plant 40 miles from my home is set to come back online within the next two years.... only bringing about 5000 jobs to the area!!! Construction on it was halted a few years back because of lack of funding!!!! Terrible, terrible thing Obama!!!!


----------



## Skull Pilot

DC42 said:


> This is such a Horrible thing!!! Obama wants to find other means of supplying energy!!! Besides, coal plants only produce 73% of the CO2 emmited in the atmosphere!!! Oh yea, building nuclear and hydroelectric power plants will only create millions of jobs nationwide!!! Oh yea, I live in the south and everything here is run by nuclear or hydro electric power plants---Oh yea, our electric bills are lower than anyones in the country!!!!
> 
> By the way, because of this....a nuclear power plant 40 miles from my home is set to come back online within the next two years.... only bringing about 5000 jobs to the area!!! Construction on it was halted a few years back because of lack of funding!!!! Terrible, terrible thing Obama!!!!



what does this have to do with what cap and trade taxes will do to the economy?


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any functioning brain cells? Obama has advanced this more than once, his words are available to anyone that wants to be educated. Your head in the sand ignorant response won't help you when your electric bill triples and your taxes triple locally so the Local Government can pay for THEIR electric bill, when your entire budget for food, clothing and well anything also triples because those companies have to triple their electric bill.
> 
> Get a clue DUMB ASS. Or continue to claim the minimal revenue brought it is worth the destruction of the middle class. Go visit one of those countries that is lucky to have electricity sometimes during the day and never at night, see how you like it, that is where we are headed if this crap passes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's a partisan idiot, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignored.
Click to expand...


What a shocker.    Maybe cause you have no idea how it will 'pay down the deficit'? And, sorry to say, but you are completely partisan.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's a partisan idiot, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a shocker.    Maybe cause you have no idea how it will 'pay down the deficit'? And, sorry to say, but you are completely partisan.
Click to expand...


If anyone else wants to discuss anything in my posts, or paying down the deficit, I'll be happy to.


----------



## Gunny

Iriemon said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, the $366 billion in annual revenues it would raise goes along way cutting down the deficit the conservatives are concerned about.
> 
> Incentivizing less pollution, cleaner air, probably less oil dependence, while putting a huge dent in the deficits.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...


OTOH?  OTOH my ass.  Fuck the little people, right?  Just so long as your tree-hugging agenda gets play.


----------



## WillowTree

KMAN said:


> Why is it liberals never provide any logical talking points on the subject at hand????  They either call you a name or compare it to something else that is totally unrelated, or change the subject...






Invoking Booosh is their answer for everything.


----------



## Iriemon

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsmax.com - Cap-and-Trade May Cost Households $3,900 a Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, the $366 billion in annual revenues it would raise goes along way cutting down the deficit the conservatives are concerned about.
> 
> Incentivizing less pollution, cleaner air, probably less oil dependence, while putting a huge dent in the deficits.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with this picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH?  OTOH my ass.  Fuck the little people, right?  Just so long as your tree-hugging agenda gets play.
Click to expand...


My ass.  Fuck the future right?  Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away!

The pass the buck generation.  And its leaders Ron George and George.  Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.  

And while we are at it, least stay addicted to the oil tit because it's really good for our economy to be dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.

If you are concerned about the little guy let's cut the payroll taxes and jack up the income and investment tax rates on those making more than a million.  That'll help the little people.  I'm fine with that.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Iriemon said:


> My ass.  Fuck the future right?  Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away! The pass the buck generation.  And its leaders Ron George and George.  Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.


You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.


Iriemon said:


> And while we are at it, least stay addicted to the oil tit because it's really good for our economy to be dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.


In case you haven't noticed, our economy, which all you lefties want to use to fund your Utopian fantasies, runs on oil. There is no viable alternative. And we'd be less dependent on Saudi Arabia if we were alowed to drill for oil in our own country. But guess who opposes that?


Iriemon said:


> If you are concerned about the little guy let's cut the payroll taxes and jack up the income and investment tax rates on those making more than a million.  That'll help the little people.  I'm fine with that.


Cutting taxes is a good start. Why tax millionaires, they spend money in the economy also, and get taxed already.
Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?


----------



## Iriemon

Mad Scientist said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Fuck the future right?  Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away! The pass the buck generation.  And its leaders Ron George and George.  Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.
Click to expand...


Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.  



> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while we are at it, least stay addicted to the oil tit because it's really good for our economy to be dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.
> 
> 
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, our economy, which all you lefties want to use to fund your Utopian fantasies, runs on oil. There is no viable alternative. And we'd be less dependent on Saudi Arabia if we were alowed to drill for oil in our own country. But guess who opposes that?
Click to expand...


Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?  



> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are concerned about the little guy let's cut the payroll taxes and jack up the income and investment tax rates on those making more than a million.  That'll help the little people.  I'm fine with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting taxes is a good start. Why tax millionaires, they spend money in the economy also, and get taxed already.
Click to expand...


Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.



> Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?



False statement.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Fuck the future right?  Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away! The pass the buck generation.  And its leaders Ron George and George.  Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.  *
> 
> Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting taxes is a good start. Why tax millionaires, they spend money in the economy also, and get taxed already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *False statement*.
Click to expand...


Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.  

Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.


----------



## oreo

Shogun said:


> in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!




Most of the outscourcing in this country occurred in the 1990's while Bill Clinton was in office.  Business tends to do that when TAXES are high.  They go elsewhere to lower their costs to be competitive in the global marketplace.


----------



## oreo

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.  *
> 
> Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *False statement*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.
> 
> Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.
Click to expand...


Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.  It was rushed through by Barack Obama so-fast that our congress didn't even read it.  It was supposed to be for immediate economic stimulus--when most of these infracstructure projects were not even shovel ready.  Most won't be ready for 5 to 7 years!  They had plenty of time to read this bill.  It was shoved through by Obama for a reason.  He did not want us, the American tax-payer to know what was in his bill.

Then they rushed through the Ominus bill another 450 BILLION dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks cramed in there by both democrats & republicans.

So much for Obama's  promise of "transparency" in government!

Recession:  When your neighbor loses their job.
Depression:  When you lose your job.
Recovery:  When Obama loses his job.


----------



## driveby

Skull Pilot said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it liberals never provide any logical talking points on the subject at hand????  They either call you a name or compare it to something else that is totally unrelated, or change the subject...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the liberal argument for everything is
> 
> "Bush Sucks"
> 
> "You don't like Obama so you must like Bush and Bush Sucks"
> 
> "You didn't complain about Bush(even if we did) and Bush sucks"
> 
> Oh yeah and Bush Sucks
Click to expand...


You forgot " you're a racist ! " ...........


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.  *
> 
> Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *False statement*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.
Click to expand...

   Take a look at the post I responded to.   I'd say the same about it.  But feel free to prove it since you interjected.



> Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.



I wouldn't put on Clinton the budget ending 9/30/01 either.  I was making an observation based on what another member have claimed trying to argue there was never a surplus under Clinton.

As for Obama, he inhereted a tanking economy and a government that had to borrow $1.4 trillion in the year before he took office.  I'd damn glad he passed stimulus bills.  I don't want to live thru a depression.


----------



## Iriemon

oreo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other news MORE conservatism capitalista outsourcing and job loss while globalization shuts down another small town factory at 10!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the outscourcing in this country occurred in the 1990's while Bill Clinton was in office.  Business tends to do that when TAXES are high.  They go elsewhere to lower their costs to be competitive in the global marketplace.
Click to expand...


Source of evidence for this claim?


----------



## Iriemon

oreo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.  *
> 
> Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?
> 
> Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.
> 
> *False statement*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.
> 
> Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
Click to expand...


Thoses weren't earmarks.  



> It was rushed through by Barack Obama so-fast that our congress didn't even read it.  It was supposed to be for immediate economic stimulus--when most of these infracstructure projects were not even shovel ready.  Most won't be ready for 5 to 7 years!  They had plenty of time to read this bill.  It was shoved through by Obama for a reason.  He did not want us, the American tax-payer to know what was in his bill.



We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.



> Then they rushed through the Ominus bill another 450 BILLION dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks cramed in there by both democrats & republicans.
> 
> So much for Obama's  promise of "transparency" in government!



How does that show lack of tansparency?



> Recession:  When your neighbor loses their job.
> Depression:  When you lose your job.
> Recovery:  When Obama loses his job.



Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years.  We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.  

I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.
> 
> Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
Click to expand...



Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............


----------



## Iriemon

driveby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.


----------



## Xenophon

Cap and trade is a disaster, it will drive the teetering economy into depression.

Only a fool would even sugest doing it.

The way to get off oil and coal is to build safe nuke plants and set up solar and wind BEFORE you take out the coal and oil plants, not after.

BTW, the 'rich' is not an inexhaustable moneypit, they have a number of ways to protect what is theirs, and are usually very good at it.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.
Click to expand...


You have to be joking????  You mean you can't do your own thinking on that?  This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think.  People like you, we won't stand a chance


----------



## jeffrockit

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.
Click to expand...


Show me where any of that is stimulus! That was the name of the bill right?


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a lot of spin on your end.  Not a whole lot of thought process, but a lot of *hopeful *ideology.
> 
> Just a footnote for you, when Barry signed the second stimulus package, that's on him  When the budget gets passed, that's all on Obama.  Your not going to be able to spin that with any truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they rushed through the Ominus bill another 450 BILLION dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks cramed in there by both democrats & republicans.
> 
> So much for Obama's  promise of "transparency" in government!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that show lack of tansparency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recession:  When your neighbor loses their job.
> Depression:  When you lose your job.
> Recovery:  When Obama loses his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years*.  We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.
> 
> I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?
Click to expand...


That would be the worst recession in 30 years


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to be joking????  You mean you can't do your own thinking on that?  This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think.  People like you, we won't stand a chance
Click to expand...


Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to your comment--Barry--told us on 3 different occasions that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.  Low & behold there was the 64 million in AIG retention bonuse's the +200 million in Fannie/Freddie bonuse's, 20 BILLION for Acorn, 95 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million dollars for Harry Reid's train from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> We didn't need all those tax cuts in it either.
> 
> How does that show lack of tansparency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recession:  When your neighbor loses their job.
> Depression:  When you lose your job.
> Recovery:  When Obama loses his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't cause this the worst recession in 65 years*.  We shall see if his policies get us out of it without a depression.
> 
> I think that is something Americans of all stripes can pray for America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the worst recession in 30 years
Click to expand...


After looking at the BEA data; I'll retract my statement for now.

Looking at annualized data, the worst year since WWII was 1981, a 1.9% real decline.  The Economy was down -.1% in 3dQ08 and -1.6% 4thQ08, so we are pretty close to that.  However, looking at worst quarters the economy decreased -2.8% in 82; -3.1% in 75/75, and -3.8% in '58.  So we have a little ways to go to hit those benchmarks.

However


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be joking????  You mean you can't do your own thinking on that?  This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think.  People like you, we won't stand a chance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."
> 
> You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.
Click to expand...


A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be joking????  You mean you can't do your own thinking on that?  This is the problem today, you need to be told what to think.  People like you, we won't stand a chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."
> 
> You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
Click to expand...


The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."
> 
> You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
Click to expand...


This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"  There is no "earmark column" in any bill

   Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.

*Criticism of Earmarks*
This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.

Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.

However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"
> 
> Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
> 
> Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
> 
> Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
> 
> "Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
> 
> In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
> 
> Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
> 
> *Criticism of Earmarks*
> This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]
> 
> An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.
> 
> U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.
> 
> Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.
> 
> Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.
> 
> However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is.  There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill.  There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.

There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill.  I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying.  Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"
> 
> Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
> 
> Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
> 
> Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
> 
> "Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
> 
> In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
> 
> Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
> 
> *Criticism of Earmarks*
> This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]
> 
> An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.
> 
> U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.
> 
> Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.
> 
> Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.
> 
> However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is.  There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill.  There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.
> 
> There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill.  I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying.  Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.
Click to expand...


No earmarks in the stimulus bill?  You have been fooled bigtime.  There were articles about the earmarks in the stimulus bill.  You just chose not to read them.  I'm not going to change your mind...but you have been misinformed..  So argue all you want...but Obama has said a lot of things that aren't true.  But, your one of those Barry supporters that would follow him over a cliff if he asked you to.
By the way, I'm not confused at all on this matter.  But, my friend, you are confused on what constitutes an earmark.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is from wikipedia, maybe this will help you understand the term "earmark"
> 
> Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
> 
> Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
> 
> Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
> 
> "Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
> 
> In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
> 
> Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
> 
> *Criticism of Earmarks*
> This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[3]
> 
> An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system.
> 
> U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public. Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.
> 
> Earmarks are inserted anonymously as items in appropriations and other bills, or appear, sometimes as lists, sometimes embedded in text, in the House, Senate or Conference Committee reports that accompany legislation. While most earmarks tend to be located in appropriations bills, they can pop up in other bills as well.
> 
> Under current congressional rules, there is no requirement that a member identify his or her earmarks. Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise would not vote for.
> 
> However, the process of earmarks has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (which are then put online) indicating that they or their spouse have no financial interest in the earmark request.[4] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[5] Finally, member-directed projects constitute 2 percent of the federal budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I have a pretty fair understanding of what an earmark is.  There were not earmarks in the stimulus bill.  There are a gizillion articles on the stimulus bill; if it had earmarks there would be half a gazillion articles ranting about it.
> 
> There were earmarks in the $400 billion omnibus budget bill.  I had seen clips of sources like fox news that intercut Obama promising no earmarks (which he said when talking about the stimulus bill) and then showing there were earmarks in the budget bill, to create the (mis)impression that he was lying.  Maybe that is where you confusions comes from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No earmarks in the stimulus bill?  You have been fooled bigtime.  There were articles about the earmarks in the stimulus bill.  You just chose not to read them.  I'm not going to change your mind...but you have been misinformed..  So argue all you want...but Obama has said a lot of things that aren't true.  But, your one of those Barry supporters that would follow him over a cliff if he asked you to.
> By the way, I'm not confused at all on this matter.  But, my friend, you are confused on what constitutes an earmark.
Click to expand...


Great.  Cite one reliable source there were earmarks in the stimulus bill and show everyone I'm wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walter!  It is you!  "Welcome to Walmart.  Get yer shit and get out!"  LMAO!  You're my fav.  : )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying what exactly? Or just ignoring the fact your to FUCKING STUPID to know how reality works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, just having a little fun with your style.  Every watch Jeff Dunham?
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MpGOPqROg&feature=fvsr[/ame]
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IAGJK-hR6o&feature=fvsr[/ame]
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w88MLvC8fE&feature=fvsr[/ame]
> 
> If you really want a response to your posts, write them without the infantile name calling.  Then I'll be happy to discuss.
Click to expand...


In other words you will gladly ignore reality cause you are too DAMN STUPID to have an answer. Thanks though for playing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DC42 said:


> This is such a Horrible thing!!! Obama wants to find other means of supplying energy!!! Besides, coal plants only produce 73% of the CO2 emmited in the atmosphere!!! Oh yea, building nuclear and hydroelectric power plants will only create millions of jobs nationwide!!! Oh yea, I live in the south and everything here is run by nuclear or hydro electric power plants---Oh yea, our electric bills are lower than anyones in the country!!!!
> 
> By the way, because of this....a nuclear power plant 40 miles from my home is set to come back online within the next two years.... only bringing about 5000 jobs to the area!!! Construction on it was halted a few years back because of lack of funding!!!! Terrible, terrible thing Obama!!!!



Another one that pays NO ATTENTION. Obama is AGAINST Nuclear Power. He does not want it to replace Coal Plants. But hey live in that denial phase all you want.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Fuck the future right?  Just so long as we can pay less tax, borrow away! The pass the buck generation.  And its leaders Ron George and George.  Why the US Govt is $11 trillion in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out Obama who is tripling Ws' deficit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends who you ask.  Based on what DiamondDave said about the Clinton budget, this budget is all Bush's until 9/30/09, and the proper measure of a deficit is the amount the Govt borrowed, which was $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08.  Using those measures Obama won't come close to even a 50% increase.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of concervation, wind, solar, water, nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting taxes is a good start. Why tax millionaires, they spend money in the economy also, and get taxed already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gunny was concerned about the little people.  As am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax investments? Why would you want tax the very thing that makes the economy work and grow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False statement.
Click to expand...


Water is all done, we HAVE no where but the Ocean to get more water power. Wind won't work because the Democrats don't want ANY near them. Try Kennedy and Feinstein. Solar won't work except at the house level because, again NO ONE wants any of that near them. Ohh and OBAMA is OPPOSED, as are the Congressional Democrats, to NUCLEAR Power.


----------



## FactFinder

The government in partnership with their financial cronies gave us the current recession. Apparently, they are trying to finish off the job with this cap & trade.

They are either totally incompetent imbeciles or they are all on the dole of the Skull & Bones Society.

They are basing massive, harmful legislation on "Unsettled Science". We are currently in a period of global cooling and the verdict is still out on whether man produced CO2 has any negligble effect on the environment. There is mounting evidence that wind shifts and undersea volcanoes are causing Arctic and West Antarctic melting. If this wasn't political, one would think they would at least want the underlying premise to have validity.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."
> 
> You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
Click to expand...


Once again you make a false claim, it is simple, you claim that the monorail meets the criteria established for the "STIMULUS" bill, Prove a project that will take YEARS to build and only benefits one city is going to STIMULATE the CURRENT economy.


----------



## editec

FYI:

*America's Climate Security Act of 2007: *chief sponsors, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).



> Cap-and-trade
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances.  The Act's sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050.  The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005.  Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Lieberman-Warner would establish: [/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](1) A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA.  They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](2) The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](3) The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Within the Treasury Department, it would establish:[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](4) The Energy Assistance Fund to provide funds to the low-income home energy assistance program and to the rural energy assistance program;[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](5)  The Climate Change Worker Training Fund to provide job training to any workers displaced by this Act and assistance to workers in need of training or re-training;[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](6) The Adaptation Fund to help various fish, wildlife, plants and associated ecological resources in adapting to and surviving the effects of climate change; [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](7) The Climate Change and National Security Council to submit annual reports to the President, Senate and House of Representatives the extent to which other countries are reducing greenhouse emissions through mandatory programs; the threat of climate change to sensitive populations, national resources and political stability; and potentially destabilizing impacts of climate change on national security;[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances.[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
> International Reserve Allowance Program
> [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Act would require the President to establish an interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction. Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 
source


Looks to me like, if anything, this is a bill seeking to *SAVE the coal industry,* more than kill it.

Will it drive up the cost of coal fired electic?

Damned right it will.

But I found THIS most interesting, too

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]





> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Act would require the President to establish an *interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction.* Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, *failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.*[/SIZE][/FONT]


[/SIZE][/FONT]

I failing to understand why you people see this as OBAMA's bill or some kind of environmentalists dream bill.

First of all, look who sponsored it.

Do you really think a Senator from *WEST VIRGINIA* would screw the coal industry?

Secondly, this actually allow the coal industry to contine polluting by giving them some way (a way which I doubt will matter) to offset their pollution impact.

Why are you people thinking this is a LIBERAL or ENVIRONMENTALISTS bill?

This is a BILL that mostly  benefits the COAL and ELLECTRIC INDUSTRIES.


​


----------



## Iriemon

So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.


----------



## editec

Iriemon said:


> So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.


 
There were plenty of earmarks.

The question is *are they porky earmarks are not?*


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."
> 
> You can't show they are earmarks.  I know, because they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
Click to expand...



Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence.  It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.


----------



## Iriemon

editec said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were plenty of earmarks.
> 
> The question is *are they porky earmarks are not?*
Click to expand...


Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.


----------



## Newby

I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her.  There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas?  That is what's known as an earmark for Reid.  He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
> PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
> In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
> 
> Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence.  It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.
Click to expand...



From your source: _ In theory and publicity, the package is earmark free. _

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her.  There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.



Demostrably false assertion.  But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate, particlulary when they've really embarrassed themselves by calling me stupid about a point they are then undeniably proved completely wrong about.

Or did you want to again take a shot at proving that Obama has tripled spending?


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her.  There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demostrably false assertion.  But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate.
Click to expand...


You've never proven anyone wrong from anything I've seen on here.  Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.  The fact that you continue to defend Obama's spending and projected deficit will cancel any credibility of any argument that you try to make.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
> PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
> In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
> 
> Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence.  It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your source: _ In theory and publicity, the package is earmark free. _
> 
> But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.
Click to expand...


This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill and defend it using intellectually dishonest means shows that you do not care about the actual wrongs that are taking place in our government, all you care about is that 'your side' of the political aisle is 'right', and you'll do anything to defend them.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her.  There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demostrably false assertion.  But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never proven anyone wrong from anything I've seen on here.
Click to expand...


I will back up my assertion and cite the thread in which Newby asserted multiple times that spending had tripled under Obama and called me stupid for challenging him on it and then proving him completely wrong, if anyone is interested. 



> Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.



Sure, lots of people yap about faleshoods and the like when proven wrong.  You were one of them.



> The fact that you continue to defend Obama's spending and projected deficit will cancel any credibility of any argument that you try to make.



Another misleading accusation.  I have defended the deficit for this year to avoid economic collapse.  I have never defended projecte deficits beyond the point the economy gets back on its feet.  Quite the contrary.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
> PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
> In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
> 
> Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence.  It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your source: _ In theory and publicity, the package is &#8220;earmark free.&#8221; _
> 
> But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
Click to expand...


This *is* a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".  

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.


----------



## Newby

Your posts and other's reactions to them speak for themselves.  Intellectual dishonesty obviously makes you a legend in your own mind, but no one elses.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your source: _ In theory and publicity, the package is earmark free. _
> 
> But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
Click to expand...


Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread.  We have to define what the word "Is, is?"  I've lost all respect for you and your posts.  You are one naive person.  Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes.  I've read enough of your tripe.  You need to grow up some mentally.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your source: _ In theory and publicity, the package is earmark free. _
> 
> But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This *is* a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
Click to expand...


Again?     Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you. 

Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?


----------



## Newby

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread.  We have to define what the word "Is, is?"  I've lost all respect for you and your posts.  You are one naive person.  Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes.  I've read enough of your tripe.  You need to grow up some mentally.
Click to expand...


Exactly.   I'm glad that someone else sees it for what it is.


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thoses weren't earmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking serious ?  That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm fucking serious.  Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.
Click to expand...


Ohh, so the source would have to meet your standards of "reliable".  

What isn't "reliable" are promises made by Hussein.

Unless you're a total braindead moron, you know your argument is weak and nothing but semantics anyway. Just as my Clinton analogy points out, he stuck his lil wee wee in the chubby girls mouth instead of her dumpster with a Davey Crockett hat, so it really wasn't "sexual relations". This whole freakin bill was an earmark, so there were technically no earmarks.......


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread.  We have to define what the word "Is, is?"  I've lost all respect for you and your posts.  You are one naive person.  Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes.  I've read enough of your tripe.  You need to grow up some mentally.
Click to expand...


I didn't define anything.  Go back to the start of the posts.  RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.  I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill.  All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.  

Great.  Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person.  There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks.  Which I acknowledged.  

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> ...  Numerous people have c*onfronted you over your falsehoods *however, and *you just *cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or *ignore them*.






Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This *is* a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again?     Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.
> 
> Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?
Click to expand...


You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.

I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.  

You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.

Convicted by your own statement.  The record is clear.


----------



## Terral

Hi Oreo:



oreo said:


> As promised by Obama--he plans to bankrupt the coal industry in this country--by imposing a cap & trade on existing coal power plants.
> 
> Estimates are that this policy will cost the average home an additional *$2000.00* per year in electric costs . . .



Barack Obama is using this "new energy tax" to place even more burden and stress on the average US American Household, when he promised "NO TAXES" going up for average Americans. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWz8gjF0u8"]Just Listen To This Joker![/ame]  

This is another '*tax and spend liberal Democrat*' that appears more like *a Fascist today* (the Obama Deception) than a Socialist. Just the idea that this cartoon character is ready to drop the "New Tax Bomb" on strugging American families shows that his *New World Order intentions* are 'bad' for the USA . . .  

GL,

Terral


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  Numerous people have c*onfronted you over your falsehoods *however, and *you just *cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or *ignore them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This *is* a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again?     Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.
> 
> Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.
> 
> I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.
> 
> You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.
> 
> Convicted by your own statement.  The record is clear.
Click to expand...


What's 'clear' is that not only are you a partisan, you're a closed minded, stubborn partisan.  Have a nice day. 

P.S. You never did explain why Obama promised there wouldn't be any more earmarks during his campaign, and why he apparently thought they were a 'bad' thing.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  Numerous people have c*onfronted you over your falsehoods *however, and *you just *cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or *ignore them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again?     Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.
> 
> Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.
> 
> I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.
> 
> You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.
> 
> Convicted by your own statement.  The record is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's 'clear' is that not only are you a partisan, you're a closed minded, stubborn partisan.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


What's crystal clear from the record is that you lie about what people say, and then don't support your accusations or retract them.



> P.S. You never did explain why Obama promised there wouldn't be any more earmarks during his campaign, and why he apparently thought they were a 'bad' thing.



PS I don't feel obliged to explain things I did not assert.


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example.  Of your fabrication and falsehood.  Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".
> 
> Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread.  We have to define what the word "Is, is?"  I've lost all respect for you and your posts.  You are one naive person.  Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes.  I've read enough of your tripe.  You need to grow up some mentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't define anything.  Go back to the start of the posts.  RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.  I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill.  All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.
> 
> After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.
> 
> Great.  Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person.  There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks.  Which I acknowledged.
> 
> If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.
Click to expand...



Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?  

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........


----------



## Iriemon

driveby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread.  We have to define what the word "Is, is?"  I've lost all respect for you and your posts.  You are one naive person.  Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes.  I've read enough of your tripe.  You need to grow up some mentally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't define anything.  Go back to the start of the posts.  RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.  I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill.  All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.
> 
> After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.
> 
> Great.  Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person.  There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks.  Which I acknowledged.
> 
> If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?
> 
> Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........
Click to expand...


Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't define anything.  Go back to the start of the posts.  RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.  I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill.  All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.
> 
> After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.
> 
> Great.  Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person.  There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks.  Which I acknowledged.
> 
> If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?
> 
> Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.
Click to expand...


Oh, brother...


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't define anything.  Go back to the start of the posts.  RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.  I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill.  All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.
> 
> After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.
> 
> Great.  Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person.  There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks.  Which I acknowledged.
> 
> If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?
> 
> Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.
Click to expand...



Yeah, thats it ..........


----------



## garyd

Let me clue you in Gentlemen. As currently configured  if Obama's cap and trade plan goes into action as it is currently written according to one of Fox news leading Dem supporters (and they have more Dem supporters than the Alphabet soup media has REp. supporters combined) It will include a bill that will give most Americans a rebate of any increase in cost that is passed along to them by the various energy companies, which means essentially that no one gets penalized except those few people who don't qualify for a rebate.

Which means most American companies in the Next few decades will be run from some manmade island of the Coast of Abu Dhabi where the fat cats will take ther money and tell Obama as J.Paul Getty once told FDR kiss my ass I don't live there anymore.

Oh and because no one really gets penalized that still lives here, the likelihood is that nothing energy wise will change accept thruough the normal function of government.


----------



## Iriemon

garyd said:


> Let me clue you in Gentlemen. As currently configured  if Obama's cap and trade plan goes into action as it is currently written according to one of Fox news leading Dem supporters (and they have more Dem supporters than the Alphabet soup media has REp. supporters combined) It will include a bill that will give most Americans a rebate of any increase in cost that is passed along to them by the various energy companies, which means essentially that no one gets penalized except those few people who don't qualify for a rebate.
> 
> Which means most American companies in the Next few decades will be run from some manmade island of the Coast of Abu Dhabi where the fat cats will take ther money and tell Obama as J.Paul Getty once told FDR kiss my ass I don't live there anymore.
> 
> Oh and because no one really gets penalized that still lives here, the likelihood is that nothing energy wise will change accept thruough the normal function of government.



Understanding that the cap and trade will cost big emitters money and that Fox news is known for its very conservative pro-business bias, why would you think quoting a claim by Fox news would be persuasive to anybody?


----------



## Newby

Why don't you tell us all who you feel is a legitmate news source?


----------



## editec

Iriemon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were plenty of earmarks.
> 
> The question is *are they porky earmarks are not?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four.
> 
> Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.
Click to expand...

 
Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_

I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.


----------



## Newby

If their general connotation was taken by the public as 'money directed to a specific problem', and weren't incredibly abused by all those in Washington, then why would Obama promise during his campaign that there would be none of them? (If Iriemon would answer this question, it would negate her whole perspective, which is why she does not answer it.)  Obviously, the connotation of the word 'earmark' is negative and perceived as a pejorative by the general public, and as wasting the tax payer's money on things the federal government has no business funding to begin with.


----------



## DC42

I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork".  What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!


----------



## Meister

DC42 said:


> I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork".  What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!



Call it what you want to call it.  Call it a potato if you want.  Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have.  The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks.  This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that".  This is no way to run our government.  If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed.  Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent.  They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.


----------



## Iriemon

editec said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were plenty of earmarks.
> 
> The question is *are they porky earmarks are not?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four.
> 
> Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?
> 
> If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_
> 
> I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.
> 
> THAT is an example of an EARMARK.
> 
> Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.
> 
> Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.
Click to expand...


What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  The Obama admin didn't deny it.  But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.  

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I  believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills.  That's my understanding.

Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> DC42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork".  What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you want to call it.  Call it a potato if you want.  Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have.  The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks.  This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that".  This is no way to run our government.  If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed.  Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent.  They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.
Click to expand...


Don't blame me.  I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four.
> 
> Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?
> 
> If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_
> 
> I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.
> 
> THAT is an example of an EARMARK.
> 
> Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.
> 
> Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $4000 omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  But the Obama adminsitration asserted the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and article that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while it technically didn't have earmarks" there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, and therefore is not an earmark in the sense these things are traditionally done.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
Click to expand...



And a blow job is not sexual relations, blah blah blah ........


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four.
> 
> Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?
> 
> If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_
> 
> I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.
> 
> THAT is an example of an EARMARK.
> 
> Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.
> 
> Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  The Obama admin didn't deny it.  But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I  believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills.  That's my understanding.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
Click to expand...


Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?


----------



## Iriemon

driveby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?
> 
> If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_
> 
> I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.
> 
> THAT is an example of an EARMARK.
> 
> Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.
> 
> Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $4000 omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  But the Obama adminsitration asserted the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and article that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while it technically didn't have earmarks" there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, and therefore is not an earmark in the sense these things are traditionally done.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a blow job is not sexual relations, blah blah blah ........
Click to expand...


And waterboarding is not torture blah blah blah ........ 

Lots of things come down to definitions.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?
> 
> If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem_ it's an *earmark.*_
> 
> I believe,  for example,  that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.
> 
> THAT is an example of an EARMARK.
> 
> Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.
> 
> Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  The Obama admin didn't deny it.  But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I  believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills.  That's my understanding.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?
Click to expand...


I don't believe he did.


----------



## Meister

Iriemon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DC42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork".  What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you want to call it.  Call it a potato if you want.  Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have.  The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks.  This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that".  This is no way to run our government.  If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed.  Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent.  They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame me.  I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.
Click to expand...


You didn't have to tell me who you voted for, I already knew.


----------



## Iriemon

Meister said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you want to call it.  Call it a potato if you want.  Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have.  The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks.  This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that".  This is no way to run our government.  If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed.  Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent.  They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame me.  I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't have to tell me who you voted for, I already knew.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  Some of us were awake.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  The Obama admin didn't deny it.  But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I  believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills.  That's my understanding.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe he did.
Click to expand...





> Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
> By Bill Adair
> Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
> 
> 
> 
> Bookmark this story:
> Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.



PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
> By Bill Adair
> Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
> 
> Bookmark this story:
> Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
> By Bill Adair
> Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
> 
> Bookmark this story:
> Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.
Click to expand...



Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised. 

Amazing.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.


----------



## Newby

And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh??  How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too.  Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end.   Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end.  What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection.  There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.
Click to expand...



I made no false statements, you however are a different story.  I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games.  You're a blind partisan hack.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made no false statements, you however are a different story.  I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games.  You're a blind partisan hack.
Click to expand...




Newby said:


> Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?



False statement.   Obama promised no such thing.

The record is clear.  Folks can decide for themselves who the blind partisan hack is.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh??  How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too.  Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end.   Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end.  What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection.  There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.



Who is this rant directed to, me?

I don't have endless devotion to Obama.  Clinton was my first choice in the election.  I've critcized Obama on a few things.  

I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.

Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made no false statements, you however are a different story.  I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games.  You're a blind partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False statement.   Obama promised no such thing.
> 
> The record is clear.  Folks can decide for themselves who the blind partisan hack is.
Click to expand...


I showed exactly what he said, and as I said, if you want to play semantic word games to make your point, be my guest.  If that's how you consider an argument won, more power to you.   I've seen you do it time and time again on this board with pretty much everyone you 'debate' with, as a matter of fact, that's pretty much all you ever do. 

The point is that he promised to go line by line through every bill and agreed with McCain about earmarks and curbing wasteful spending and the very first bill he signed had over 9,000 of them in it doesn't say anything at all, right? Campaign promise broken, period.  Keep defending his spending until the cows come home after you and your ilk bashed Bush for it for eight years for that administration's spending, along with the deficit it created.  Keep your blinders securely in place and support his spending under the guise of 'stimulus'.  You're either a partisan hack or extremely uninformed and uneducated.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh??  How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too.  Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end.   Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end.  What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection.  There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this rant directed to, me?
> 
> I don't have endless devotion to Obama.  Clinton was my first choice in the election.  I've critcized Obama on a few things.
> 
> I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.
> 
> Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.
Click to expand...


During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*


McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

*Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*


Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh??  How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too.  Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end.   Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end.  What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection.  There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this rant directed to, me?
> 
> I don't have endless devotion to Obama.  Clinton was my first choice in the election.  I've critcized Obama on a few things.
> 
> I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.
> 
> Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.
Click to expand...


Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?

Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this rant directed to, me?
> 
> I don't have endless devotion to Obama.  Clinton was my first choice in the election.  I've critcized Obama on a few things.
> 
> I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.
> 
> Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?
> 
> Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.
Click to expand...


Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending?  I think not.  Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few?  I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.

Keep defending the Obama spending spree.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?
> 
> Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending?  I think not.  Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few?  I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.
> 
> Keep defending the Obama spending spree.
Click to expand...


1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and

2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.  

I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill.  Keep bashing at straw men.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?
> 
> Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending?  I think not.  Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few?  I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.
> 
> Keep defending the Obama spending spree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and
> 
> 2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.
> 
> I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill.  Keep bashing at straw men.
Click to expand...


Are you denying that you've defended it?  Seriously?

And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean????  You're an absolute howl.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending?  I think not.  Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few?  I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.
> 
> Keep defending the Obama spending spree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and
> 
> 2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.
> 
> I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill.  Keep bashing at straw men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you've defended it?  Seriously?
> 
> And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean????  You're an absolute howl.
Click to expand...


I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation.  I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.  

Glad you're enjoying yourself.  I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.


----------



## Maple

You are probably going to pay closer to $ 4,000 per year for every American household in utility costs. Isn't that wonderful!!!! Guess what, it ain't gonna work to freeze the north pole again, because the only country stupid enough to do it will be the USA. For those of you who have not figured this out yet, air moves freely, it knows no boundries. 

I think that it would be more effective to erect a wall all around our country that goes to the stratophere to block off all of the air from all other countries. Of course, we would not be able to fly airplanes again or go sailing on a ship because we would not be able to get out. Maybe we could make some air- tight doors or something in this wall.


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and
> 
> 2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.
> 
> I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill.  Keep bashing at straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you've defended it?  Seriously?
> 
> And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean????  You're an absolute howl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation.  I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.
> 
> Glad you're enjoying yourself.  I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.
Click to expand...



I posted this for you on another thread.  And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well. 



> First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns
> 
> *President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II *and set up a massive challenge for his administration.
> 
> By Stephen Clark
> 
> Thursday, April 23, 2009
> 
> In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.
> 
> But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.
> 
> During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, *proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year*, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.
> 
> *Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.*
> 
> "You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.
> 
> "The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."
> 
> *Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.*
> 
> *Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.*
> 
> *And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."*
> 
> *Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."*
> 
> "There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. *"Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."*
> 
> The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.
> 
> There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).
> 
> On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.
> 
> Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.
> 
> "Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."
> 
> He said Obama is doing too much too fast.
> 
> "It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.
> 
> But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.
> 
> *"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.*
> 
> Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.
> 
> *"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.*
> 
> "It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you've defended it?  Seriously?
> 
> And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean????  You're an absolute howl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation.  I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.
> 
> Glad you're enjoying yourself.  I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this for you on another thread.  And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns
> 
> *President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II *and set up a massive challenge for his administration.
> 
> By Stephen Clark
> 
> Thursday, April 23, 2009
> 
> In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.
> 
> But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.
> 
> During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, *proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year*, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.
> 
> *Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.*
> 
> "You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.
> 
> "The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."
> 
> *Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.*
> 
> *Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.*
> 
> *And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."*
> 
> *Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."*
> 
> "There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. *"Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."*
> 
> The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.
> 
> There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).
> 
> On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.
> 
> Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.
> 
> "Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."
> 
> He said Obama is doing too much too fast.
> 
> "It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.
> 
> But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.
> 
> *"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.*
> 
> Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.
> 
> *"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.*
> 
> "It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you.  It's always interesting to hear the Murdoch perspective.  Is there a point to this?


----------



## Newby

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation.  I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.
> 
> Glad you're enjoying yourself.  I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this for you on another thread.  And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns
> 
> *President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II *and set up a massive challenge for his administration.
> 
> By Stephen Clark
> 
> Thursday, April 23, 2009
> 
> In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.
> 
> But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.
> 
> During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, *proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year*, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.
> 
> *Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.*
> 
> "You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.
> 
> "The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."
> 
> *Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.*
> 
> *Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.*
> 
> *And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."*
> 
> *Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."*
> 
> "There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. *"Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."*
> 
> The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.
> 
> There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).
> 
> On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.
> 
> Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.
> 
> "Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."
> 
> He said Obama is doing too much too fast.
> 
> "It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.
> 
> But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.
> 
> *"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.*
> 
> Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.
> 
> *"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.*
> 
> "It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's always interesting to hear the Murdoch perspective.  Is there a point to this?
Click to expand...



 Just as I thought, let your partisanship shine thru.  You can't even read something that might oppose your views because you're so afraid of being wrong. Pitiful.

Do you seriously think that everything that Fox News reports is invalid?  If so, I really do feel sorry for you.


----------



## Iriemon

Newby said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this for you on another thread.  And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  It's always interesting to hear the Murdoch perspective.  Is there a point to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought, let your partisanship shine thru.  You can't even read something that might oppose your views because you're so afraid of being wrong. Pitiful.
> 
> Do you seriously think that everything that Fox News reports is invalid?  If so, I really do feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...


I read it.  I'll repeat, is there some point to it?  What is your point?  Or are you just ranting because you've got your nose out of joint?


----------



## driveby

Iriemon said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source of the definition you are using?
> 
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing.  If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark"  then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things.  It can't mean something that broad.
> 
> No one disputes that the $4000 omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks.  But the Obama adminsitration asserted the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and article that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while it technically didn't have earmarks" there was pork in it.
> 
> When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.
> 
> After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.
> 
> As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.
> 
> The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, and therefore is not an earmark in the sense these things are traditionally done.
> 
> Technicall definitions?  I agree.  That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a blow job is not sexual relations, blah blah blah ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And waterboarding is not torture blah blah blah ........
> 
> Lots of things come down to definitions.
Click to expand...



Another idiotic comparison, you boneheads think giving 2 pancakes for breakfast instead of 3 is torture....


----------



## oreo

Iriemon said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this rant directed to, me?
> 
> I don't have endless devotion to Obama.  Clinton was my first choice in the election.  I've critcized Obama on a few things.
> 
> I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.
> 
> Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?
> 
> Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.
Click to expand...



Obama did state he would go line by line in the budget & "scrub" the budget clean of wasteful spending.  Instead of doing that he has given us a 3.9 TRILLION dollar budget, that even his own CBO has stated is unsustainable.  This bill has already passed the house.

*For a 20 year old *getting out of college & heading into the work force in a couple of years, they will be paying approximately *$114,000.00 *in *INTEREST* alone on this bill.  *A 40 year old* will be paying *$138,000.00 *in INTEREST alone on this bill.  These numbers are fact, not fiction, you can look them up yourself--_Si Modo has a chart on this board regarding these numbers._

Obama also told the American public on *3 different occasions *, including during his televised news conference regarding the stimulus bill, that there were no earmarks in the 787 BILLION dollar economic stimulus bill.  That was not true--it was loaded with earmarks.  Just one example:  (640 MILLION dollars so Harry Reid could get his train from Las Vegas to Disneyland--& many more such as this.)  He rushed this bill through the house & senate so fast, that not even they read it.  In it were the AIG retention bonuses of 68 million, another 200+ million in bonuses for Fannie/Freddie executives, 20 BILLION dollars for Acorn, 98 Million for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 Million for smoking cessation, & many many more.  There was a reason Obama wanted this bill rushed through--he wanted it passed before the American public got a look at it.  "So much for his promise of "transperancy in government."

So you can chose to keep the blinders on & be mezmerised by all the fancy speeches.

Obama has in fact, broken several promises within his first 100 days.


----------



## Maple

Some estimates run as high as $4,000 per year and the po people are gonna have to pay it too. This ain't gonna be like taxes, if you don't make enough you don't have to pay, everyone even the po people gonna pay for this made up monster.

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT PEOPLE ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, many weather scientists state that it is a natural occurence that has happened over thousands of years.  Theres the fraud.


----------



## Iriemon

oreo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. *During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.*
> 
> McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
> 
> *Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."*
> 
> Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?
> 
> Like I said.  Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did state he would go line by line in the budget & "scrub" the budget clean of wasteful spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a cite to a quote to where he said this?
> 
> How is that the same as the claim he promised there would be no earmarks?
Click to expand...


----------



## garyd

Obama: No earmarks for 2009 - CNN.com

HOefully CN' word is good enough for you doubting one. The story references Obama's no Ear marks pledge, There is also a later one by CNN recanting it. Google Obama on Ear mrks.


----------

