Obama calls out lawmakers who rail against earmarks but defend their own.
Obama calls out lawmakers who rail against earmarks but defend their own.
As ThinkProgress has observed, conservative lawmakers such as Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have slammed the omnibus spending bill for including earmarks — despite the fact that many of those earmarks were their own. In a speech today on earmark reform, President Obama called out legislators for having this double standard:
OBAMA: Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination. I also find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own – and will tout them in their own states and districts.
Watch it:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tweets his response to Obama’s speech: “No time is better than the present to undertake earmark reform Mr. President”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey Grampy McInsane. STFU
March 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pmYou are irrelivent.
Mr. President, please take Sen. McCain’s advice (”No time is better than the present to undertake earmark reform Mr. President”) and start by calling out the Republican hypocrites by name and striking their earmarks first!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pmSays gollum in frodo’s ear.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmMr. McCain, meet Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor. Maybe you three could work something out in your own party and show President Obama what should be done. Or would you rather have a hissy fit?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pmI agree with the above comments. Republican’s or Democrats taking earmarks is not what the country needs, especially now. We need the line item veto and term limits. Although passing either one will never happen because it takes away the ability of any member of congress to use federal monies to make sure they retain their power. This is also the reason the Fair Tax will not pass.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:25 pmRe McCain’s “comment,” was that “tweet” or “twit?”
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pmPLC is right. The Republicans would have and still could have a major victory if the entire Republican party totally removed all their earmarks and then came to President Obama with their argument.
As it is now, it’s like Captain Renault proclaiming that he’s shocked, Shocked! by the gambling while pocketing his winnings.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pmRemember McCain’s plan to double down on Bush’s tax cuts & throw basic operations of the federal government in the red?
Remember his “spending freeze” proposal that had an ever-growing list of exemptions?
Remember how bitter old man McCain lost big time? Now he’s doing a political egging of the White House.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pmMcCain looks like one of those old men in the balcony on the Muppet Show.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pmIf there is ever a time to justify earmarks, it is when government spending is necessary to avert a full blown depression. As I recall, Mr. McCain could not decide if he knew too little about economics or he was the key to handling the banking crisis. So, Mr. McCain, why don’t you sit over there in your comfortable Senate seat and sublimate your desires by getting rid of earwax.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pmBlow it out your ass, Gramps.
You lost.
Big.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pmWell, being the patriot statesmen that they so vocally pride themselves to be, I’m absolutely sure that Vitter, McConnell, Graham and Kyl will voluntarily reject these onerous and offensive earmarks, and they will hold true to their red-white-and-blue Republican values of smaller government, absolute honesty, and pure transparency.
Hang on while I take another hit on my bong pipe…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
If there is ever a time to justify earmarks, it is when government spending is necessary to avert a full blown depression.
Earmarks are neither justified nor necessary right now. Neither is this massive amount of Gov spending. What is needed is incentives for money to be invested in business not in politicians.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pmGotta wonder if Arizona’s other senator, GOOPer Kyl, is on McStain’s tweet.
Hey Fundies, take the log out of your own eye so you can see clearly to help take a splinter out of another’s.
PEACE
March 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pmindependent989 Says:
Give me an example of one earmark that is going directly to a politician, rather than some kind of business entity.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pmEach Congress Critter inserting earmarks should be physically earmarked. That way the American voter could decide in the next election if they’re deserving of a vote.
It works on cattle & pigs, which are considerably more sensitive than Congress Critters.
Oh, and Mavericks should be branded.
In the ass.
With a hot iron.
Grandpa?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pmIt is possible those in the Obama administration read Think Progress.
Carl Wolfson a host on KPOJ 620am refers to Think Progress regularly and has literally read a few funny comments from Think Progress, giving Think Progress credit but not naming the poster.
Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy regulary referr to Think Progress.
On occasion Ray Taliaferro will refer to Think Progress, but I have noticed his shows many times follow the subject matter of Think Progress.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pmWe need to spend some of this money on lowering poverty rates.
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
McVain has his earmark-cut-the-pork-barrel-spending pet peeve, and it isn’t important. This 1% or less in spending is going to worthy projects, benefiting districts, so the populace is far more irritated than concerned with the rants of a deposed candidate.
If McCain has any humility after the shameful campaign he ran, he would decline to run for reelection in 2010.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pmindependent989, I think you’re lost. Doesn’t Ron Paul have a site?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989 Says:
Give me an example of one earmark that is going directly to a politician, rather than some kind of business entity.
I am assuming that you are commenting on my comment as stated “What is needed is incentives for money to be invested in business not in politicians.”
The meaning of that statement is this:
Earmarks are a way for a politician to give money back to those in his community that have supported him in the past. Therefore as long as he provides the pork to his major constituents and fundraisers, they will continue to make sure that he is elected. That is what I mean by “Investing in politicians.”
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pmhad enough, I believe I heard Rachel Madow mention TP as well.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pmSometimes earmarks are good. They are for bridges and other necessary projects. They get people to work. The Republicans, I would presume, want their citizens to be safe, have decent roads, etc. I think we need to be careful not to say they are all bad. (Bridge to Nowhere not withstanding.)The irony here is that the same folks that rail against them, brag to the people back home about how much they have done for the state. Good for Obama for calling them on it.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pmhad enough, I swear I hear Rachel Maddow last Friday evening saying that Think Progress was her favorite blog site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pmGood post PLC @ 12
Pork is jobs during these tough times.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pmatsegga Says:
We need to spend some of this money on lowering poverty rates.
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
We will always have hunger and always have poverty in certain areas of the world. Throwing money at the problem will not help. It is corrupt governments that keep these people in poverty in the 3rd world nations. Not a lack of generosity on the part of the west.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm2 earmarks that McInsane mocked. One was for beaver control, I believe it was in North Carolina. The earmark is for $250,000 and the beaver does approximately $4,000,000 worth of damage in that state. The other was for the Mormon cricket in Utah. That was for 4 million dollars and the insect does an estimated 24 million dollars in damage to crops there and in other states. It may sound silly while just reading it, but a little bit of critical thinking Can go a long way.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pmMcWars Says:
Good post PLC @ 12
Pork is jobs during these tough times.
Or you could say, pork puts pork on the table.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pmlarkohio Says:
Sometimes earmarks are good. They are for bridges and other necessary projects. They get people to work. The Republicans, I would presume, want their citizens to be safe, have decent roads, etc. I think we need to be careful not to say they are all bad. (Bridge to Nowhere not withstanding.)The irony here is that the same folks that rail against them, brag to the people back home about how much they have done for the state. Good for Obama for calling them on it.
Earmarks are never good. They are the breeding ground for corruption. Money can still be given to the states for various projects but allow the projects to be judged on a stand alone basis, not by holding a bill hostage or by giving incentives to congress to vote for a bad bill.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pmI sincerely hope McCain copied his Republican collegue from Arizona, Sen. Jon Kyl, on that message.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pmindependent989, what you are using to define “earmarks” is quid pro quo bribery. If that’s provable, then, criminal charges should be filed. Otherwise, it is an expenditure that should be evaluated on its merits. McCain is brushing all earmarks as “bad”. Republicans in general are labelling all other legislators’ earmarks as “bad”. President Obama is saying “let’s take a look at the value of each expenditure”.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pmHussein Leporello Says:
2 earmarks that McInsane mocked. One was for beaver control, I believe it was in North Carolina. The earmark is for $250,000 and the beaver does approximately $4,000,000 worth of damage in that state. The other was for the Mormon cricket in Utah. That was for 4 million dollars and the insect does an estimated 24 million dollars in damage to crops there and in other states. It may sound silly while just reading it, but a little bit of critical thinking Can go a long way.
If the problems are that bad, then allow private industry to take care of them. Then, those who most benefit from the solution can pay for it. Government is not the answer.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pmThrowing money at a social problem may not always help, but it ’s sure hell of a lot cheaper and more meaningful than supporting wasteful Pentagon spending (I decline the use of the term ‘defense’ because it’s a ruse to make us think every dollar appropriate for defense actually defends the country.) Wasteful defense systems with cost overruns and contractors that overcharge the government and fail to provide the outlined services are two major examples.
Ending hunger entirely may or may not be possible, but we aren’t ok with that; you seem to be. That’s the difference here.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pmindependent989 Says: @29
I can see your new here. So just a little FYI for ya.
The astegga Borgen project posts are a BOT.
Nobody there to reply or have a “discussion” with.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989, what you are using to define “earmarks” is quid pro quo bribery. If that’s provable, then, criminal charges should be filed. Otherwise, it is an expenditure that should be evaluated on its merits. McCain is brushing all earmarks as “bad”. Republicans in general are labelling all other legislators’ earmarks as “bad”. President Obama is saying “let’s take a look at the value of each expenditure”.
Please read post # 32 and # 35. The value of each expenditure would be better viewed as separate issues instead of the way they are handled in these sort of bills.
Obama can’t view each earmark line by line because he does not have a line item veto.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pmObama does not have “line item veto” TRUE
March 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pmObam can’t view each earmark line by line.. FALSE
independent989 Says: Earmarks are never good.
Now, I understand the problem. You are talking about the process of putting expenditures into unrelated bills and saying that can lead to corruption. Of course, I agree and I would like to see stand alone bills for transparency. However, do you really think that having 9000 stand alone bills is going to solve the problem of corruption? You-vote-for-my-pork-and-I’ll-vote-for-yours will present the same risk.
The more important issue is the content, what the proposed expenditure is meant to accomplish.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pma Obama
March 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pmRandomChaos Says:
independent989 Says: @29
I can see your new here. So just a little FYI for ya.
The astegga Borgen project posts are a BOT.
Nobody there to reply or have a “discussion” with.
I am new here, do you agree with post 21? If so then I am replying to you. If not, then I am engaging anyone who agrees with Post 21. fair enough?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pmEarmarks are neither justified nor necessary right now. Neither is this massive amount of Gov spending. What is needed is incentives for money to be invested in business not in politicians.
If people are unemployed, they need unemployment benefits. Spending required. Ditto maintaining health insurance.
The private sector is contracting at an alarming rate. It then becomes the government’s responsibility to step in and help find a bottom. Investments in maintaining the economic framework (i.e., critical industries) that are usually part of the expand-contract cycle are necessary ensure they become part of our recovery. Investments in new industries are also important.
I still don’t understand the whining after the years of ramped-up off shore spending as to why it’s bad to spend money here at home. Don’t conservatives love America?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmRandomChaos Says:
Obama does not have “line item veto” TRUE
Obam can’t view each earmark line by line.. FALSE
So what is his method for removing earmarks that he does not agree with?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
independent989 Says:
Earmarks are never good.
Bullsh*t. You’re a ranting concern troll. Enough said.
Way to use your intellect and knowledge of the issues to put me in my place instead of attacking me personally. Enough Said.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmWiley #11 LOL! Right on the money! Hee
March 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmindependent989 Says: If the problems are that bad, then allow private industry to take care of them. Then, those who most benefit from the solution can pay for it. Government is not the answer.
Private industry does not focus on the common good. It focuses on the bottom line. Private industry is also horrible at looking at long term consequences. Further, private industry is not the only entity that suffers or benefits from issues. Finally, “government” is not some boogeyman to be afraid of, it is us, “we the people”, united in a common purpose and combining our individual resources into a collective, more powerful force to meet goals. “Government” IS the answer to many issues. I personally can’t cure cancer, but some of my tax dollars can be combined with millions of other Americans’ tax dollars and put toward research that can. There is no money to made by private industry to cure cancer, unless it is with a government contract to do the research.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pmThis is where you are lost poor soul. It is the ones the gop put in for years under cover of darkness without anyone knowing or being allowed to review that reflects your sentiment.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989 Says: Earmarks are never good.
Now, I understand the problem. You are talking about the process of putting expenditures into unrelated bills and saying that can lead to corruption. Of course, I agree and I would like to see stand alone bills for transparency. However, do you really think that having 9000 stand alone bills is going to solve the problem of corruption? You-vote-for-my-pork-and-I’ll-vote-for-yours will present the same risk.
It may not solve the problem, but it would give another level of transparency, it would also make the process more difficult.
The more important issue is the content, what the proposed expenditure is meant to accomplish.
I agree and I do not agree with the content of a large portion of the bill, and that is why congress should not be bribed to vote for poor legislation with money for their constituencies.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pmI wonder if independent989 knows that the McPoints program stopped after he lost the election?
Ah, nothing like the smell of concern troll in the afternoon…
PEACE
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pmindependent989 Says: I do not agree with the content of a large portion of the bill
Give me an example of one part that you disagree with.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pmMcCain is a day late and a dollar short once again. Obama has already announced earmark reform for the FY 2010 budget that starts October 1st. One reason it was difficult to remove the earmarks from the Bush FY 2009 budget was the continuing resolution that funded spending at last years levels plus inflation. 5 months worth of spending had already happened so they couldn’t just be taken out. Plus the authorization was set to expire so action needed to be taken. Obama has taken the right approach, McCain’s harping not withstanding. Plus, he funnels his earmarks through his fellow Republican, Jon Kyl, so he can have his talking point.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pmOnce again, President Obama tells it like it is. This is one of the qualities that I like about him. He is right up front on issues and confronts the lies and dishonesty immediately.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pmindependent989 Says:
It may not solve the problem, but it would give another level of transparency, it would also make the process more difficult.
Or maybe impossible. This budget bill is already seriously late.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pmMcCain “tweets”? That’s a laugh coming from a guy who admittedly doesn’t know how to turn on a computer. More likely an aide did it for him.
-AF
March 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Private industry does not focus on the common good. It focuses on the bottom line.
Private industry finds solutions to problems and ways to make our country run more efficiently. Private industry made this country great, not government.
Private industry is also horrible at looking at long term consequences.
I would say that Private industry is always focused on maintaining stockholder value. To do that they must be focused on the future. If government is so good at looking at long term consequences why is the country going bankrupt? Why was it approaching bankruptcy before this latest crisis ever began? Entitlements. Where is the foresight from gov there?
Further, private industry is not the only entity that suffers or benefits from issues.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Finally, “government” is not some boogeyman to be afraid of, it is us, “we the people”, united in a common purpose and combining our individual resources into a collective, more powerful force to meet goals.
I would like to believe that. I know that there are many in the lower levels of government that are good people. But the upper echelon is, in my belief, rife with corruption and those that are there for their own good, not the country’s. Both Reps and Dems.
“Government” IS the answer to many issues. I personally can’t cure cancer, but some of my tax dollars can be combined with millions of other Americans’ tax dollars and put toward research that can. There is no money to made by private industry to cure cancer, unless it is with a government contract to do the research.
I do not agree. Are you saying that if I had a pill that cured cancer, I could not make billions? Pharmaceutical Companies are in business to find cures to diseases. They do it well and they do it for a profit.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:25 pmIndependant,
March 11th, 2009 at 5:25 pmIt gets sent back if he so chooses. I am not the one claiming I know what the President can and cannot see.
spencers mom Says:
I wonder if independent989 knows that the McPoints program stopped after he lost the election?
Ah, nothing like the smell of concern troll in the afternoon…
PEACE
Again, please take a look at the answer I gave to Hussein on # 46. This applies to you as well.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:27 pmindependent989, our discussion can go no further without actually looking at the content of an earmark you don’t approve of. Got one?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pmArchibald is that you?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pmCome here and give us some LOVIN Peachycheeks.
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989 Says: I do not agree with the content of a large portion of the bill
Give me an example of one part that you disagree with.
An increase of spending of 8.5% during a recession/depression? Are you kidding me?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:29 pm# 25 hellinabucket, # 27 PatrioticLiberalChristian
Wow… Rachel Maddow on TV mentioning Think Progress?!!
I turned off my cable in protest of MSM months ago…maybe it is time to have it trned back on.
For certain, Think Progress is the #1 information site.
I forgot to mention Peter B Collins who interviews FATZ SHAKIR regular basis.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pmI am beginning to recognize this pattern.
It is you isn’t it Archibald?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:31 pmindependent989 Says:
Give me an example of one part that you disagree with.
An increase of spending of 8.5% during a recession/depression? Are you kidding me?
That does not answer the question.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:31 pmDarn right, PLC. In times good & bad, government is We The People. Government can also cut down on bad times.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pmMost economist agree that in order to pull ourselves out of a rapidly increasing recession, it is necessary to spend money to stimulate it. This is what we’ve done in the past and it has worked. This is what we’re doing now.
The conservative meme that we should be ‘fiscally responsible,’ even further makes no sense considering they had no trouble pushing through any funding for the military industrial complex, or slashing taxes for the highest economic brackets.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pmRandomChaos Says:
Independant,
It gets sent back if he so chooses. I am not the one claiming I know what the President can and cannot see.
Exactly, that gives him the ability to say “My hands are tied. I can not rebuke good legislation just because there are earmarks totaling 2% of the total expenditure.” Not that this was good legislation, in my opinion. Sending it back is not a real option.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pmCome on, independent989, pretend you are the President with a line-item veto. Give me one line out of the omnibus bill that you would veto. Just one.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pmAn increase of spending of 8.5% during a recession/depression? Are you kidding me?
How is government supposed to cut down on spending when the private sector is down on its spending? A share-the-pain approach, you must understand, will only prolong the pain.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pmAnacher Forester Says:
McCain “tweets”? That’s a laugh coming from a guy who admittedly doesn’t know how to turn on a computer. More likely an aide did it for him.
Oh, how can you be so cruel? Didn’t one of his staffers claim that he was single-handedly responsible for the BlackBerry during the campaign?
PEACE
March 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989, our discussion can go no further without actually looking at the content of an earmark you don’t approve of. Got one?
How about 486K for LaRaza?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pmSo the president is supposed to shut down the government just because conservatives make an argument and everyone knows that argument is filled with hypocrisy.
Republicans are 40% of the senate with 60% of the earmarks.
Why didn’t conservatives cut their pork and why are they blaming the man who signs the routine measure?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pmindependent989 Says:
Give me an example of one part that you disagree with.
An increase of spending of 8.5% during a recession/depression? Are you kidding me?
That does not answer the question.
How does it not answer the question? Do you believe that it is a good thing that we increase the budget by 8.5% during our current crisis. I think that we should at the very least, hold all spending at 2008 levels and then look for areas to cut.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pmindependent989 Says:
How about 486K for LaRaza?
Do you really think I just wanted you to name one without explaining what you disapprove of in the item? Keep going, please.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Come on, independent989, pretend you are the President with a line-item veto. Give me one line out of the omnibus bill that you would veto. Just one.
See post 72
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pmindependent989, you are stalling. We have agreed that the content of an earmark matters, yet you are not being very forthright about what content you disagree with. It took you 20 minutes to even give me a partial answer and I never gave any of my college professors that long to show up for a class.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pmindependent989: Do you have any idea what LaRaza does in states like Ca, Arizona and other western states?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pmLook at the pattern.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pmVery telling.
Nuff said.
independent989 Says:
How about 486K for LaRaza?
Do you really think I just wanted you to name one without explaining what you disapprove of in the item? Keep going, please.
OK, I do not believe that my money should be taken away from me at the point of a gun and given to a group that is hell bent on allowing and promoting illegal immigration and who is against taking all measures to make sure that illegals do not vote.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pmangels81 Says:
independent989: Do you have any idea what LaRaza does in states like Ca, Arizona and other western states?
I admit that I don’t. Apparently, independent989 doesn’t either.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pmooh, can I help? from the website:
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.
What’s that again? Oh yeah employment and economic status! Now what was the President talking about again?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pmrats! earmarks!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pmso it’s not WASTEFUL spending per se- its that you don’t agree with where the money is going? how its spent? this is different than the ‘earmards bad!’ argument.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pmindependent989: You’ve just shown your true colors. You have no idea what LaRaza does. You have thrown out the rightwing BS talking points which have been refuted over and over again.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmI’m hearing that David Vitter’s next earmark will be for all airlines to allow him and other BFDs to ignore the boarding rules and then be compensated for the ugly stares of ticket agents, gate attendants and pilots.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent989, you are stalling. We have agreed that the content of an earmark matters, yet you are not being very forthright about what content you disagree with. It took you 20 minutes to even give me a partial answer and I never gave any of my college professors that long to show up for a class.
Patriotic, I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject and not attempt to deflate the credibility of my answers with your pejorative statements. You are not the only person I am engaged with and it takes time for me to respond to everyone. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not take this into consideration.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pmindependent989, what exactly does the omnibus bill allocate money to LaRasa to do?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pmWait for it… Wait for it…. wait…..
March 11th, 2009 at 5:51 pmangels81 Says:
independent989: You’ve just shown your true colors. You have no idea what LaRaza does. You have thrown out the rightwing BS talking points which have been refuted over and over again.
Angel, I have never tried to hide my true colors but would be interested in hearing what you think that they are. I know that La Raza is for allowing those that have come here illegally stay here. I know that they are against having voters show proof of citizenship when voting. As far as the good things that they do, I am sure there are many. Mussolini made the trains run on time as well.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pmindependent989 Says:
OK, I do not believe that my money should be taken away from me at the point of a gun and given to a group that is hell bent on allowing and promoting illegal immigration and who is against taking all measures to make sure that illegals do not vote.
I put my tax return in an envelope. I had no idea I should have stuffed it down the barrel of a gun.
Your characterization of La Raza sounds like you got it verbatim from a wingnut radio host. For the benefit of those who are interested and actually read, I’ll provide a link to specifics about the organization and immigration.
And another link about the organization itself, rather than whatever some nutcase has claimed.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pmAnd I will also say that Michelle Malkin’s name comes up in the first page for La Raza- talking about their immigration policies.
Regardless of that debate, La Raza is very effective here in the Mission of SF, with community building and job training for people. This is money spent well in a recession.
The conservative argument about immigration is another debate, but shouldn’t be confused with this ‘earmark bad’ argument.
But I agree, I think there should be reform, and I think the President should address that issue, but a 2% portion- with recession urgency does not seem like the worst thing we’re dealing with right now.
I would also like to see some percentages from Republican-led Congresses for their earmarks. But again- the military spending speaks for itself.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pmWould that be RepubliCon hypocrites!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pmindependent, you are right that LaRaza is against Hispanics being singled out as the only group that has to show proof of citizenship. They like most of congress and the ex-president bush is not for deporting illegals who are already in this country. What else do you want to know?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pmindependent989 Says:
Patriotic, I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subject and not attempt to deflate the credibility of my answers with your pejorative statements. You are not the only person I am engaged with and it takes time for me to respond to everyone. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not take this into consideration.
I do not need any “benefit of the doubt” from you and I have been sticking to the subject. You have tried to divert me from a straightforward, specific topic that we began by throwing other questions at me. You can choose which posters you respond to in the same way that I choose which of your topics to focus on. I was also addressed by other posters but gave you the courtesy of staying engaged only with you as we seemed to have start a worthwhile discussion. When you did respond to me, it was with throw away lines without solid substance and if you have such credibility on the topic, you should have had a ready and more complete answer. I was very patient before I became pejorative and believe me, I can be a lot harsher once I decide a poster is just trolling and not willing to engage in a real discussion.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pmindependent, you are right that LaRaza is against Hispanics being singled out as the only group that has to show proof of citizenship. They like most of congress and the ex-president bush is not for deporting illegals who are already in this country. What else do you want to know?
I have never heard of anyone saying that only Hispanics should have to show proof of citizenship. I have heard that everyone should show proof of citizenship and La Raza has opposed this.
I am for making it as close to impossible, as possible, for illegals to work in this country. Especially with unemployment at 8.1%.
What else do you want to know?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pmgummitch, thanks for the links. Very informative.
McWars, isn’t it interesting that “LaRaza” translates as “the people”? I trust you were not slighted when I didn’t respond earlier – I really was trying to stay engaged with independent.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pmI am out, have to go home. I will be here tomorrow to engage if any of you would like to. Thank you for the discussion.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pmindependent. So are you saying we should have a national ID card proving citizenship?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pmWouldn’t this be a great cause for the Republicans? If they would work as a party to present some logical and binding legislation to get control of earmarks they could make a giant step on the long, long, really looooong road they will be on to regain their credibility.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pmindependent989 Says: I am out, have to go home. I will be here tomorrow to engage if any of you would like to. Thank you for the discussion.
That “engagement” and “discussion” felt like pulling teeth or having them pulled. I’m not sure I want to try again.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pmPLC,
The pattern, the pattern.
You recognize it. I know.
Cheers,
March 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pmRC
PLC took on independent with gusto. Our visitor was polite, I’ll give him that.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:29 pmThe National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.
So, what’s the problem?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pmlindsey graham said on “meet the press” his earmark in the bill was for a convention center in s.c. that would bring in more revenue from conventions, and would thus directly benefit his constituents. fair enough, but wasn’t sarah palin’s “bridge to nowhere” going to directly benefit the inhabitants of gravina island…?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:47 pmemployment security should not coem at the epense of our liberty.
if no one was hiring them, there would be so few illegals it wouldn’t matter.
if Mr. Independent thinks it’s a problem, he should be going after the companies that employ illegals, not every single citizen of the USA.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pmwhoa – excuse my typing – too many things at once this afternoon…
March 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmSays gollum in frodo’s ear.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pmWas McCain calling himself Mr. President or was he talking about President Obama. Please someone tell John McCain the Election is over and he lost. Earmarks are just that as that’s why the Law Makers were elected to represent the interest of the people. President Obama is talking about Pork wish is used for kick backs and special groups that give to the Law Makers campaigan. Now Pork is waste as was with the Bridge to Nowhere. I really wish people would read the Founding of the United States and how the US Govenment was set up with all the States. I really get a little tired of President Obama having to teach Americans and Law Makers American History.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pmI’m somewhat amused by the false outrage of some members of the GOP regarding the earmarks in the Omnibus bill–slamming their fists down with one hand while accepting funds earmarked for their own constituencies with the other.
This reminds me of the scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault exclaims with false indignation for the sake of the Germans, “I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place here.” And then a moment later, the croupier appears to give him his daily winnings.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:52 pmEarmark reform is certainly a worthy endeavor, but the reality is that the economic well-being of this country will not be determined by whether or not such reform happened in the Omnibus bill which was written during the Bush Administration, the chest-thumping of the indignant Obama-haters notwithstanding.
Earmarks comprise a mere drop of spit in the ocean of debt that the Bush Administration created and that the Obama Administration inherited. By necessity, the debt will now have to get worse before it can get better. There are far more important issues that need to be addressed with respect to impact on the economy.
McCain has become a one-trick pony with his obsession over earmarks. Fine–his choice. Obama has bigger challenges to consider in the near future, and the earmark issue will be addressed in a timely fashion.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pmMcCain’t needs to STFU! Why wasn’t McCain standing up and mad as hell while Bush was in office. We didn’t hear a PEEP out of McCain’t then. Now he wants to grandstand and harp on earmarks! Give me a break – he needs to take some pointers from his daughter who seems to be a little smarter.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:12 pmThe republiscum Channel just never let`s up, it`s always on, it`s always very loud ,always WRONG………what a HOOT.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:13 amEARMARK HYPOCRISY?
Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:56 PM by Mark Murray
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/11/1832273.aspx
Of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill in the form of a “no” on the cloture vote — 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.
In total, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these 28 senators had a combined 307 solo earmarks totaling nearly $240 million.
Here’s the breakdown (check out how many of these people are republicans):
Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
March 12th, 2009 at 1:08 amBayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million)
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)