Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Veto every earmark

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Veto every earmark
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, i'm listening to Mccain.

he's now (just barely) ahead in the polls...

he says he will veto EVERY earmark.

what is an earmark?

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills.

http://earmarks.omb.gov/

note that this is the Presidents web site..

according to the Presidents site? last year the Congress appropriated $16,501,833,000 in earmarks...
List of 2008 Appropriations Earmarks by 110th Congress Subcommittee

10,000,000,000$ plus was defense and energy and water development...

an extra 1.17 billion was Military Construction and Veterans Administration.

http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008_appropriations_earmarks_110th_congress.html

now, i'm not excusing the earmark process...

it's got to be fixed...

but let's be realistic? these problems are not the main problems we face...


if you got the page that lists all of the earmarks by state, th eworst state is Pending (whatever that means) with 9 billion...


the next is CA with 460 million...
and then TX with 344 million....

basically the Presidents site doesn't really tell me where the earmarks are going, but the 9 billion pending seems to be for defense.. is Mccain REALLY going to cut 10 billion$ off defense spending?

Obama is silent on the issue... so at least Mccain is moving in the right direction by talking about it...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
McCain must clearly intend to offer the Constitution the same disrespect that dubya has, if he promises to veto every earmark.

Line item veto isn't possible at the federal level. In order to veto any earmark, he has to veto whatever bill it is tied to. And, since every bill usually has some earmark attached, in order to live up to that promise, McCain is promising to veto every bill out of Congress. Somehow I doubt that he actually means to.

That promises is just so much hot air, as is a great deal of McCain's campaign.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
he has to veto whatever bill it is tied to. And, since every bill usually has some earmark attached, in order to live up to that promise, McCain is promising to veto every bill out of Congress. Somehow I doubt that he actually means to.

good point. then he calls the democratic congress do-nothings (again)...

but? if he actually names names (like he says he will) and embarasses a few people? they might stop the practice entirely..

my real problem is that 16 billion cut out of a 500 billion dollar deficit is spitting in the lake, but you have to start somewhere right?

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
McCain has been claiming he will name names for 20 years and it never happens.

Anyway, do you actually think the likes of Alaska's Stephens or Georgia's Chambliss can be embarrassed?

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
he named Abramoff...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only after it was obvious to everyone.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
Only after it was obvious to everyone.

i wouldn't say it was obvious to everyone, and i agree tha Abramoff got off light and didn't "tellall" but considering that the GOP was running everything a the time? he was definitely swimming upstream...

DeLay was sacked over that too... these are a good part of the reason the alot of GOP's don't like McCain...

i'm just wondering how he plans to "win" in Iraq and reduce spending at the same time...

heck i'm not even sure what he means by winning in Iraq..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you assuming McCain knows what h means by winning?

All I've been able to get out of his quest is that he wants to not embarrass the military, which is not among the responsibilities or prerogatives of the Commander in Chief. He's willing to endanger the welfare of the Nation to protect the ego of the military......the cart pulling the horse. The military is an instrument of the government, not the other way around.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hmmmm.....


Paternity Tests for Bears

The ad goes on to criticize an earmark that provided “$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana.” This is not the first time McCain has poked fun at the bear project. He first mentioned it on the Senate floor, while discussing the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that included funding for the project:

McCain (Senate floor, Feb. 13, 2003): Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit, you got to acquit, if I might.

Good laugh lines, maybe, but the United States Geological Service’s Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project didn’t study DNA for paternity tests or forensics. Rather, it explored a means of estimating Montana’s grizzly bear population by analyzing bear fur snagged on barbed wire. The project was funded partly by federal appropriations – about $1 million per year in add-ons to USGS in 2003 through 2005, $400,000 in 2006 and $300,000 in 2007, plus a $1.1 million earmark through the Forest Service in 2004, according to the study’s principal researcher, Katherine C. Kendall. Part of that funding was doled out as part of the omnibus appropriations bill McCain discussed in February 2003.

Despite the fun McCain had ridiculing the bear project on the Senate floor, he didn’t actually try to remove it from the bill. He did introduce several amendments, including three to reduce funding for projects he considered wasteful or harmful, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.


http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It says a lot about the lack of understanding of science he has. Do we really want another intellectual doofus in the white house?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2019 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share