airdvr 210 #1 February 25, 2009 I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. That's some funny shit When I heard that I knew I was listening to a politician who was telling me what he thought I wanted to hear.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #2 February 25, 2009 Quote I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. That's some funny shit When I heard that I knew I was listening to a politician who was telling me what he thought I wanted to hear. Disgusting, isn't it? And they aren't done yet. Now the dems are introducing ANOTHER "stimulus" of $410 billion. When will it stop???Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #3 February 25, 2009 Quote I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. That's some funny shit When I heard that I knew I was listening to a politician who was telling me what he thought I wanted to hear. It was an excellent speech. But if you want to dismiss the rest of it because of one debatable sentence, go right ahead. IMO, he should have dropped that sentence. Besides the fact that it will most likely be the only content that is discussed today, one could argue that the entire bill is an earmark. But that's what a stimulus bill is. From the OMB: "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,....." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbarnhouse 0 #4 February 25, 2009 He said "I have a bridge to sell ya in the middle of the desert. Oh and there isn't any water there...." Pffffft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 February 25, 2009 Quote He said "I have a bridge to sell ya in the middle of the desert. Oh and there isn't any water there...." Pffffft. You're confusing #44 with #43. We were sold that bridge. And then we even paid the contractors who didn't build it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbarnhouse 0 #6 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote He said "I have a bridge to sell ya in the middle of the desert. Oh and there isn't any water there...." Pffffft. You're confusing #44 with #43. We were sold that bridge. And then we even paid the contractors who didn't build it. Well I stand corrected. Please refer to item #43. He said.."I have a newer bridge other than the bridge I sold ya in the middle of the desert, and it doesn't have water either. Oh and while you're at it work harder!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #7 February 25, 2009 QuoteBut if you want to dismiss the rest of it because of one debatable sentence, go right ahead. Problem is I know that sentence was bullshit. Am I to believe that was the only one? This isn't my first rodeo. I know when a pol speaks most of it is, shall we say wishful thinking. But that wasn't even disguised well. Quoteone could argue that the entire bill is an earmark. But apparently that's not up for debate.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #8 February 25, 2009 Well ... he did say one true thing Quotewe're also suffering from a deficit of trust Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #9 February 25, 2009 Quote You're confusing #44 with #43. We were sold that bridge. And then we even paid the contractors who didn't build it. Well I stand corrected. Please refer to item #43. He said.."I have a newer bridge other than the bridge I sold ya in the middle of the desert, and it doesn't have water either. Oh and while you're at it work harder!" Item #43 was President #43. The difference between the two bridges is that one of them will be built here in the US, with our own workers, who will (after taxes) spend their paychecks in our own stores. The other was a bridge in the desert of another country, that we paid a premium price for (plus expenses and nearly tax free), that was either never built or is was so poorly constructed that it has already fallen apart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #10 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote You're confusing #44 with #43. We were sold that bridge. And then we even paid the contractors who didn't build it. Well I stand corrected. Please refer to item #43. He said.."I have a newer bridge other than the bridge I sold ya in the middle of the desert, and it doesn't have water either. Oh and while you're at it work harder!" Item #43 was President #43. The difference between the two bridges is that one of them will be built here in the US, with our own workers, who will (after taxes) spend their paychecks in our own stores. The other was a bridge in the desert of another country, that we paid a premium price for (plus expenses and nearly tax free), that was either never built or is was so poorly constructed that it has already fallen apart. Ummm.... re-read that speech. He NEVER says nutin about not working on that bridge over in the desert, he just ADDS new ones like everyone goes to college if they do some community service and everybody gets new and efficient power and everybody gets electronic medical records that will "reduce error, bring down cost, ensure privacy and save lives." (He said it... it must be true) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #11 February 25, 2009 Quote Ummm.... re-read that speech. He NEVER says nutin about not working on that bridge over in the desert, That's a done deal, it's history. The fact that there will be no bridge is water under the bridge. Quote he just ADDS new ones like everyone goes to college if they do some community service and everybody gets new and efficient power and everybody gets electronic medical records that will "reduce error, bring down cost, ensure privacy and save lives." (He said it... it must be true) It's a "trickle up" philosophy. I think it's worth a shot since the reciprocal failed so miserably. I liken it to building a house by starting at the foundation and working upwards as opposed to starting by putting down layer after layer of shingles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #12 February 25, 2009 As long as they have that 'special' paper to print money with! Which seems to have been the way to do it for years! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #13 February 25, 2009 Now he is getting ready to place additional taxes on everyone earning 250 k+ . Good thats what we need and don't forget the additional taxes that will be implemented on unemployment in two years. not to mention the 10 trillion dollar hole were in. We all have reason to be optimistic now.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #14 February 25, 2009 QuoteUmmm.... re-read that speech. He NEVER says nutin about not working on that bridge over in the desert, he just ADDS new ones like everyone goes to college if they do some community service and everybody gets new and efficient power and everybody gets electronic medical records that will "reduce error, bring down cost, ensure privacy and save lives." (He said it... it must be true) k - cut him a break. He said he was gonna find a cure for cancer.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 February 25, 2009 QuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #16 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. It really depends on what the definintion of "is" is.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #17 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. It's a stimulus package. Whether or not it was needed is debatable, but once it was decided to move forward with one, the entire thing is pork. It's an injection of public funds into the economy. Choices of how to do that include simply giving people money, e.g. W's tax breaks and his checks last year, or buying something from the people. Personally, I'd prefer we actually get something for our investment, even if overpriced, so I find the latter approach less (but still) objectionable. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. It really depends on what the definintion of "is" is. Or clear evidence of WMDs. Or 'Read my lips" and "these aren't taxes, these are revenue enhancements." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 25, 2009 Trickle up versus trickle down? Trickle down failed? So we should now be trickling up? Take a look at the budget. "Entitlement" spending is "trickle up.". The majority of prior budgets have been "trickle up." I compare "trickle" to a leaking pipe. Do we want the trickle to go down or would we like it to trickle up? That is the debate. I personally propose to "stop the trickle.". Then again, we've got to find some trickle to justify building that bridge. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #20 February 25, 2009 I about fell out of my chair! Better yet was when he said, "There are a lot of people out there who think I believe in BIG government...I don't." WTF? You have got to be kidding me, EVERYONE knows this is the return of big government. obama certainly excels at pandering to the uninformed masses.Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #21 February 25, 2009 QuoteEVERYONE knows this is the return of big government.So when did big government ever leave? Do you think the last 8 years has been an example of "small government"? If you're going to screw up details like that one, maybe I should just dismiss everything you write out of hand? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #22 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteEVERYONE knows this is the return of big government.So when did big government ever leave? Do you think the last 8 years has been an example of "small government"? If you're going to screw up details like that one, maybe I should just dismiss everything you write out of hand? Don Read my other posts I encourage you...I am not and never have been a Bush fan. I guess I should have said "the climax of big government" Lets not label (yes I am guilty as well) If a label informs they are useful. But when they distort they're worse than useless. Keep in mind that regardless of the way I made my statement or what I could have followed it up with, obama's "I don't believe in BIG government" comment was laughable at best...Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 February 25, 2009 The reality is that Bush increased it to the point where it's essentially unsustainable, and it will be hard for Obama to match this. Ironically, the fear of this is why I voted for Bush over Gore in 2000 - the state of the economy and the deficit gave great leeway for growth. Gore might have been just as bad, perhaps, but I expected tax cuts and limited growth, not cuts and massive growth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #24 February 25, 2009 I don't know how you feel about 43 one way or the other, so I'm happy to take your word for it you aren't a fan. I was actually poking fun at the notion of pulling one debatable sentence out of a large body of information, and then using that one sentence as reason to dismiss all the rest. A tried and true speaker's corner tactic to be sure, but not too useful if you want to have a reasonably intelligent/nuanced discussion. Wait, what am I thinking? Nuanced? Speaker's corner? Never mind...Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. I would argue that the distinction is very important. From an Executive agency execution and oversight perspective the difference is tremendously large. Programs (whether 'pork' or justifiable - the difference largely seems to come down to how close it gets to one's own interests) are subject to federal acquisition regulations (FAR), competitive award (usually), and oversight. Folks who are recipients of funds that are not Congressional additions can have that money pulled back (in extreme situations) or be terminated. The Executive Agencies *really* do not like earmarks --> they don’t fit into planned programs, they take time (time =’s $) to administer, and they distract from the what they're supposed to be doing. Some earmark recipients (pure ‘guestimate’ ~40%) are interested in working with the agencies; others just want their $$$. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
