tea party caucus requests 1 billion in earmarks

[sangha]

Simple.

No one on either side in any party has demanded ethics from anyone on thier side.

It's always that other teams fault, they are the bad guys when they do it, but we have pure ideals when we do it.

If you check TMs link it will show you that some in the t's have no marks at all. If you check the link that is the source of the info, you wll see that the entire GOP has no earmarks for 2011

I see it as unprincipled people who should have been booted out of office for their wrong-doing, started sucking voters' asses and changing their OWN OBVIOUS BELIEFS, in order to get re-elected. I'd rather pass on guys like that.

I dont disagree...

But lets be real here....how was a politician able to win if the opposition said "vote for me and you get all this stuff but vote for him and all of the OTHER rstates will get all this stuff and not you"

Wingnuts don't care about their principles. They only care about winning elections. They will eagerly toss their principles and their promises in order to get elected

And the teabaggers believe everything they promise

 

[Jarhead]

Read jarhead and then admitt your mistake

You just dont get it.
No....you dont WANT to get it.

Those others requested those earmarks BEFORE they commited to not request earmarks.

Oh OK I get what you are saying.

That they will refrain from earmarks now even though they were for them before they were against them.


Hell boehner defended them in the past when it was polically expediant.

Yes...so did just about every other republican...and that is why they lost the house and the senate...

IN the meantime, where is the same outrage for all of those epople in congress that voted for the iraq war before they were against it?

Do you really believe that they did not change their stance for political expediency?

You are a fool if you think not.

 

[Truthmatters]

That is the deal with this earmarks issue , its hot air.

The are basically saying they will not fight for their states share of the federal pie.

We all know that is not going to get them anywhere.

 

[Jarhead]

I see it as unprincipled people who should have been booted out of office for their wrong-doing, started sucking voters' asses and changing their OWN OBVIOUS BELIEFS, in order to get re-elected. I'd rather pass on guys like that.

I dont disagree...

But lets be real here....how was a politician able to win if the opposition said "vote for me and you get all this stuff but vote for him and all of the OTHER rstates will get all this stuff and not you"

Wingnuts don't care about their principles. They only care about winning elections. They will eagerly toss their principles and their promises in order to get elected

And the teabaggers believe everything they promise

Actually....wingnuts are stuck on principles...thus why they are called wing nuts.

 

[Truthmatters]

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell

 

[Jarhead]

That is the deal with this earmarks issue , its hot air.

The are basically saying they will not fight for their states share of the federal pie.

We all know that is not going to get them anywhere.

Well...that is a valid point and one worthy of a debate.

But what you started was by no means a valid debate.

It was accusing someone of breaking a promise even though their actions were before the promise was made.

That is disingenuous.

 

[sangha]

I dont disagree...

But lets be real here....how was a politician able to win if the opposition said "vote for me and you get all this stuff but vote for him and all of the OTHER rstates will get all this stuff and not you"

Wingnuts don't care about their principles. They only care about winning elections. They will eagerly toss their principles and their promises in order to get elected

And the teabaggers believe everything they promise

Actually....wingnuts are stuck on principles...thus why they are called wing nuts.

In wingnut world "being for earmarks before being against them is "stuck on principles"

 

[G.T.]

Simple.

No one on either side in any party has demanded ethics from anyone on thier side.

It's always that other teams fault, they are the bad guys when they do it, but we have pure ideals when we do it.

If you check TMs link it will show you that some in the t's have no marks at all. If you check the link that is the source of the info, you wll see that the entire GOP has no earmarks for 2011

I see it as unprincipled people who should have been booted out of office for their wrong-doing, started sucking voters' asses and changing their OWN OBVIOUS BELIEFS, in order to get re-elected. I'd rather pass on guys like that.

I dont disagree...

But lets be real here....how was a politician able to win if the opposition said "vote for me and you get all this stuff but vote for him and all of the OTHER rstates will get all this stuff and not you"

Well, because the voting public felt strongly squeezed Economically this time around, so much so that they'll blame anyone/anything, and so the persons running for office yelling "balance budgets reduce debts" sound the best to people who don't really delve much into politics, which is basically me aside from these boards.

A man who's over 40 and still changing his principles around is not a man. He's a shill for power. A man like that can have his pic on my dartboard, and I shoot all bull's eyes, or.....hrrmm.........donkey/elephant eyes.

The Tea Party to me is a farce because it's by and large made up of the same base the right's always had.............and in the economic storm we had, it was simple to pick up straggling independants with a message like that. Good for them and all, but it's just another power grabbing force who would end up giving in to Corporate Interests in the long-run.

McConnell, Boehner, those guys? I can see the arrogant douche-ness right in their eyeballs. Same for Palin. Same for Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. They're not fooling me.

 

[Jarhead]

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell

Yes...so they claimed but were never able to prove.

Imagine that....all of those countries and all of THEIR intel saying the exact same thing as Bush's intel...

I wonder how Bush was able to doctor the intel of Australia...and GB....and so many other couintries.

And with all of that world wide doctoring....all we have to go by is what Pelosi claims but was unable to prove.

Sure....sounds valid.

 

[Jarhead]

Wingnuts don't care about their principles. They only care about winning elections. They will eagerly toss their principles and their promises in order to get elected

And the teabaggers believe everything they promise

Actually....wingnuts are stuck on principles...thus why they are called wing nuts.

In wingnut world "being for earmarks before being against them is "stuck on principles"

Nope....

Palin is a wingnut. Pelosi is a wingnut
Boehner is a hypoicrite. Obama is a hypocrite.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Please read both links provided. The info provided by the first page is a half assed collection of some facts. Shocking, I know.

NAME EARMARKS AMOUNT

Aderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0
Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA) 0 0
Burton (R-IN) 0 0
Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO) 0 0
Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0
Lummis (R-WY) 0 0
Marchant (R-TX) 0 0
McClintock (R-CA) 0 0
Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC) 0 0
Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0
Pence (R-IN) 0 0
Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA) 0 0
Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN) 0 0
Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0
Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0
Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0
Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000

TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
As you can see, some of the R's that became T's dropped all earmarks.

Now if you go here; 2010 Pig Book Summary

You will find this info;

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks. None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.

Now if you search here; Pork Database

You can do a vast search for pork in 2010 and get some good info.

I search for Dem pork, 2010

5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943

that's $5 Billion dollars wasted on pet projects. But it's OK, b/c the dems aren't against wasting money.


[sorry for all the colors, I've been responding to shaman]

 

[G.T.]

Please read both links provided. The info provided by the first page is a half assed collection of some facts. Shocking, I know.

NAME EARMARKS AMOUNT

Aderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0
Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA) 0 0
Burton (R-IN) 0 0
Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO) 0 0
Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0
Lummis (R-WY) 0 0
Marchant (R-TX) 0 0
McClintock (R-CA) 0 0
Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC) 0 0
Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0
Pence (R-IN) 0 0
Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA) 0 0
Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN) 0 0
Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0
Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0
Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0
Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000

TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
As you can see, some of the R's that became T's dropped all earmarks.

Now if you go here; 2010 Pig Book Summary

You will find this info;

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks. None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.

Now if you search here; Pork Database

You can do a vast search for pork in 2010 and get some good info.

I search for Dem pork, 2010

5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943

that's $5 Billion dollars wasted on pet projects. But it's OK, b/c the dems aren't against wasting money.


[sorry for all the colors, I've been responding to shaman]

pple whining about colors are wussies.

 

[Truthmatters]

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell

Yes...so they claimed but were never able to prove.

Imagine that....all of those countries and all of THEIR intel saying the exact same thing as Bush's intel...

I wonder how Bush was able to doctor the intel of Australia...and GB....and so many other couintries.

And with all of that world wide doctoring....all we have to go by is what Pelosi claims but was unable to prove.

Sure....sounds valid.

Dude their lies were proven by the lack of any evidence of the claimed WMDs

 

[Truthmatters]

House GOP Still Requesting Earmarks : Roll Call


Several House Republicans have projects included on a list of 2011 earmark requests released by the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, just two weeks after the GOP Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on the spending practice.

But the Members listed are raising questions about whether their requests actually count as earmarks under the new ban, adopted by Republicans on March 11.

Republican Reps. Henry Brown (S.C.), Anh “Joseph” Cao (La.), Ron Paul (Texas), Bill Posey (Fla.), Bill Young (Fla.) and Don Young (Alaska) are among the lawmakers requesting funding for specific projects on the Appropriations Committee list.

 

[Jarhead]

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell

Yes...so they claimed but were never able to prove.

Imagine that....all of those countries and all of THEIR intel saying the exact same thing as Bush's intel...

I wonder how Bush was able to doctor the intel of Australia...and GB....and so many other couintries.

And with all of that world wide doctoring....all we have to go by is what Pelosi claims but was unable to prove.

Sure....sounds valid.

Dude their lies were proven by the lack of any evidence of the claimed WMDs

So the whole world lied about their intel?
Do you not believe there was good reason to think there may have been WMD's?

Ugh...I'm wasting my time.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell

Yes...so they claimed but were never able to prove.

Imagine that....all of those countries and all of THEIR intel saying the exact same thing as Bush's intel...

I wonder how Bush was able to doctor the intel of Australia...and GB....and so many other couintries.

And with all of that world wide doctoring....all we have to go by is what Pelosi claims but was unable to prove.

Sure....sounds valid.

Dude their lies were proven by the lack of any evidence of the claimed WMDs

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Truthmatters]

hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.

 

[Truthmatters]

White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written Three Months before Intel Report Arrived | Dissident Voice

 

[Two Thumbs]

hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.

So all the quotes from clinton and clintons time are also lies?

 

[Two Thumbs]

House GOP Still Requesting Earmarks : Roll Call


Several House Republicans have projects included on a list of 2011 earmark requests released by the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, just two weeks after the GOP Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on the spending practice.

But the Members listed are raising questions about whether their requests actually count as earmarks under the new ban, adopted by Republicans on March 11.

Republican Reps. Henry Brown (S.C.), Anh “Joseph” Cao (La.), Ron Paul (Texas), Bill Posey (Fla.), Bill Young (Fla.) and Don Young (Alaska) are among the lawmakers requesting funding for specific projects on the Appropriations Committee list.

Now if you go here; 2010 Pig Book Summary

You will find this info;

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks. None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.