9800 earmarks given 10 billion that are not even "merit based"?

Question

What the hell dems? Care to explain? Pretty well know why Bush signed the damn thing, but come on. What's your excuse?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Imaginecreatedesire: there's more to that shrimp story than was told publicly dear. I'll see if i can locate the article for you, give me some time to find it and i'll email it to you. It was actually a very good move on paul's part(and no it's not because i support him.) You'll have to read the story. Like with most things, not ever5ything is explained.

publicly or at least on a national level.

Answer 1

It bugs me, but not merely as much as my request of my US Senators Boxer and Fienstein to identify their earmarks. My congressman refused as well (he's a republican so its not a partisan thing). I don't understand how these people get off not telling us what they use earmarks for and what one's they are responsble for. Great post.

Answer 2

It IS "merit based", you know that. Now, the merit is political favors or bribes, or both, given by those earmarked in favor of.

And that is why when asked, the Congressman will not let you know that Senator Joe's uncle Fred voted for him early and often, and so merits a million dollar barn for his two cows and his mule!!

This sort of things...and if it got out, many folks would be upset!. Many others would demand earmarks for themselves for voting for him, and it might get obvious to even the American public what was going on.

You should read old MAD magazines with their political jabs even 60 years ago...same thing still going on, tho maybe a bit slicker.

It is payback for favors given, or expected to be given, under the table so nobody will know of the corruption. "Earmark" sounds so much nicer than "payoff" or "bribe"

And there is a merit base...someone bribed you so you give him a favor back, There is merit in paying back what someone did for you, for if you do not, forget any more favors and look for investigators hounding you day and night and subpoenae out the gazoo.

Or Big Pedro explaining to you what you need to do next, if you enjoy life!!

But remember, it is just the good old boys interacting for mutual interests...all perfectly legal and oh! so ethical!

And after all, it all, almost, usually, stays in this country, so kwitcherbellyachin!!

Besides, isn't this a Democratic Tradition? And we live in such a pure Democracy it is frightening!

And I myself deserve an earmark for funds for being such a good citizen, but I am bearing up being forgotten this time around, for the good of the country!!

Answer 3

Only Democrats???
For his home state, however, Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp.

Just last week, President Bush complained about thousands of earmarks in a massive spending bill Congress sent to him.

He may have had an excellent reason to promote shrimp. It is the assumption that ONLY Democrats had earmark spending (and who is to say they also did not have excellent reasons?) that I questioned. As for me-I love battered fried shrimp. 8:)

One positive I can say about Ron Paul-his information about Interest Group Support and funding is at Vote-smart.org and the other Republican front runners are not there. What are they hiding?

Problems with predatory lenders? I wonder why?

Money: Finance and credit companies contributed more than $8.2 million in individual and PAC contributions during the 2004 election cycle, 64 percent to Republicans. Credit card giant MBNA's employees and PAC contributed more than $1.5 million, including $354,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. The company spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003.

Answer 4

When the dems took over I at first was mortified and then starting laughing. They made all these promises on earmarks and I knew the couldn't resist breaking the piggy bank.

What is unfortunate is that my party has lost its way with fiscal responsibility.

Answer 5

I agree with the first answer, the middle class is no longer represented by either party. By the way this administration has put us into the biggest debt we have ever had as a nation, not that the Democrats are any different, we need another choice.

Answer 6

As long as they get their share of the pork etc.... it was so full of excesses Bush reluctantly signed it.. course he was getting the war funding so he did.
It all comes down to getting what they want instead of whats best.

Answer 7

It's win-win for both parties. The GOP manages to get money for their war while the Democrats get money for their beloved bureacracies. Democrats haven't done anything to stop the war or its funding. GOP and Democrats just love spending people's money.

Answer 8

I keep saying it, nobody believes me. It's a one party system now. Doesn't really matter if it's a Dem or repub in office, matter who funded their bid for office. Corporations.