PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Blunt's website lists the pork he asked for in the next budget.


Direckshun
04-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Pork... it's what's for dinner (http://blunt.house.gov/Media/PDFS/approps_web.pdf).

I love how proud his website is of the entire thing (http://www.blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=870), too.

Taco John
04-11-2009, 09:02 PM
This is the stuff that gets people re-elected. Why wouldn't he brag about it? This is how the system is set up. Sort of like Hungry Hungry Hippos, only with Taxpayer dollars.

Do you advocate the government reducing the amount of money they confiscate from us to solve the problem?

Direckshun
04-11-2009, 09:14 PM
This is the stuff that gets people re-elected. Why wouldn't he brag about it? This is how the system is set up. Sort of like Hungry Hungry Hippos, only with Taxpayer dollars.

Do you advocate the government reducing the amount of money they confiscate from us to solve the problem?

Hey, I advocate earmark reform. I think shining light on it like they're forcing on Blunt is a great first step.

Government "reducing the amount of money" is so vague it's hard for me to agree or disagree, so... blah.

Taco John
04-11-2009, 09:15 PM
Hey, I advocate earmark reform.


What does that even mean?


Government "reducing the amount of money" is so vague it's hard for me to agree or disagree, so... blah.

Hahahahaha! You advocate "ear mark" reform... But "reducing taxes" is "vague" to you.

You political college children are funny.

Direckshun
04-11-2009, 09:31 PM
Hahahahaha! You advocate "ear mark" reform... But "reducing taxes" is "vague" to you.

You political college children are funny.

In the latter statement, I was being asked a question, which is different from the first statement, when I was volunteering a thought.

I find vagueness acceptable in some contexts of conversation, and unacceptable in others.

Taco John
04-11-2009, 09:44 PM
In the latter statement, I was being asked a question, which is different from the first statement, when I was volunteering a thought.

I find vagueness acceptable in some contexts of conversation, and unacceptable in others.



Yeah. You appear to find vagueness unacceptable when other people offer it, but acceptable when you're asked to take a position.

You know my stance. Less government intrusion (less government confiscation of money), means less waste as far as earmarks are concerned.

So, now let's hear the "earmark reform" solution that you are advocating... What's this plan?

Dick Bull
04-11-2009, 10:32 PM
Yeah. You appear to find vagueness unacceptable when other people offer it, but acceptable when you're asked to take a position.

You know my stance. Less government intrusion (less government confiscation of money), means less waste as far as earmarks are concerned.

So, now let's hear the "earmark reform" solution that you are advocating... What's this plan?

So your solution is to give them less money to play with. How about we find a way to make people accountable for their spending?

Taco John
04-12-2009, 01:37 AM
So your solution is to give them less money to play with. How about we find a way to make people accountable for their spending?


You mean like holding elections? It's a great idea. Do you think it will work?

Hog Farmer
04-12-2009, 08:43 AM
I hate big pork !

StcChief
04-12-2009, 11:43 AM
I hate big pork !ROFL you would.

HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 05:40 PM
At least Blunt didn't run off to Cuba like BeaverCleaver did. Selling us out to Cuba and supporting a dictator who makes sure the people have 10 bucks a week to live on hardly got a notice. Fixing I-70 is bad?

Taco John
04-13-2009, 12:29 AM
I'm still waiting to hear these non-vague earmark reform proposals.

Taco John
04-13-2009, 01:11 PM
...

Garcia Bronco
04-13-2009, 01:15 PM
Earmarks aren't bad because they exist. They are bad because they aren't always in the bill that reaches the Presidents desk. Otherwise there is no problem with earmarks.

WoodDraw
04-13-2009, 01:17 PM
His campaign attacked Robin Carnahan awhile back for saying she'd join McCaskill in refusing all earmarks. That'd be a welcome change after far too many years of Kit Bond.

Are any other Republicans running?

Adept Havelock
04-13-2009, 04:18 PM
Selling us out to Cuba..

Sold the USA out to Cuba? ROFL ROFL ROFL

The amazing thing is you actually believe your own lunacy. It's clearly genuine, and not an act.

You just can't buy this kind of comedy on cable TV. Thanks. :thumb:

Taco John
04-14-2009, 01:35 AM
I get the feeling I'm not ever going to get a response that I'm looking for on this thread...

Taco John
04-14-2009, 12:41 PM
Another bump. I'd like to hear these non-vague proposals for earmark reform...

Or perhaps admissions that there are no proposals, just feelings that they'd like for earmarks to be reformed.

Cannibal
04-14-2009, 01:31 PM
I hate big pork !

But enjoy big pork loads.

Taco John
04-14-2009, 04:35 PM
If someone sees Direckshun around, would you please bump this thread. I don't want to accuse him of running from it, but you know...

Taco John
04-14-2009, 08:44 PM
DiRECXshun:

http://stark.redcross.org/images/Running_Away.gif

Dayze
04-14-2009, 08:52 PM
earmarks have always been around. I just think in the last 30 years or so (probably more, I honestly do not know), it has become way out of control.

yet, difficult to control and enforce etc.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 06:21 AM
So your solution is to give them less money to play with. How about we find a way to make people accountable for their spending?

Isn't posting a specific list of earmark requests that you're responsible for accountability?

I don't know if you're in this camp, but many Obama supporters seem to think it's better if the Congress just has bales of cash thrown out of the back of Air Force One as it flies over the country, leaving it to others to decide how it's to be spent. :shrug:

The opponents of the Iraq war liked to claim that it was a distraction in our real fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. The battle against earmarks is a distraction from the real fight against fiscal irresponsibility.

Edit: Oh, and just to be clear, I think a lot of the things that are funded by earmarks are ridiculous and should not be funded, but it's still a distraction.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2009, 01:27 PM
Earmark reform is a fun little catch phrase deliberately f'd about with for political purposes.

Quite simply the budget process works thusly:

President outlines budget/spending priorities and funding mechanisms
Congress takes President's budget under advisement and writes its own
When Members from Ag states (for example) see the need for more money in X program vs. Y supporters of Y program slated to lose funding accuse supporters of X program of being on the dole to special interests of X program and call for earmark reform.

The entire budget process is an earmark. It simply depends on who you look to to decide spending priorities. The DC bureaucracy or elected Members of the various states. Everybody gets their say in how they want to see the money spent. Its part of the process. Granted, some of those spending prioties seem retarded (DNA analysis of Grizzly Bear semen in MT) at the time but turn out yielding valuable results (A grizzly population 4x greater than previous estimates as a result of "retarded" DNA pork spending). Sometimes its pure crap.

Taco John
04-16-2009, 12:29 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SzgkMNQlCZA/R8CuiGuiVvI/AAAAAAAAACU/iuL3UBcfkpI/s400/Scared+guy+copy.jpg
"I don't know how to make this thread go away! I don't actually have any specific ideas on earmark reform, but I don't want to admit defeat!" /Direckshun

Taco John
04-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Still no earmark position from Direckshun.

It's like he ran away when he realized he didn't have one.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2009, 01:10 AM
Earmark everything!

WoodDraw
04-23-2009, 01:29 AM
Isn't posting a specific list of earmark requests that you're responsible for accountability?

I don't know if you're in this camp, but many Obama supporters seem to think it's better if the Congress just has bales of cash thrown out of the back of Air Force One as it flies over the country, leaving it to others to decide how it's to be spent. :shrug:

The opponents of the Iraq war liked to claim that it was a distraction in our real fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. The battle against earmarks is a distraction from the real fight against fiscal irresponsibility.

Edit: Oh, and just to be clear, I think a lot of the things that are funded by earmarks are ridiculous and should not be funded, but it's still a distraction.

I think this is an important point.

Obama's recent pledge to reduce the budget by a few dollars was widely ridiculed, and for good reason. Cabinet offices should reduce waste as he directed, but you can only save so much there. It's the equivalent of trying to solve thousands in credit card debt by starting to recycle.

If I was a member of the press, or a random town hall member, I'd ask: "You've called for sacrifices from those making over $250,000 through tax hikes and have been critical of Wall Street. But, what concrete sacrifies, either through tax increase or budget decreases, would you ask from Americans falling below that threshold that have contributed significantly to our problems?"

That's an important question to me, and something I want answered quickly. We aren't going to get the budget in order by reforming health care, as much as I support the end goals behind that reform. And, now more than ever, we have to figure out the long term sustainability of our budget.

But I don't consider earmarks to be a distraction from this end goal. The earmarks are, by nature, a corrupt process. I was just running in Columbia, MO the other day and on one of the trails there was a big courtyard area that had a sign saying "With thanks to Sen. Kit Bond", and then a line saying what government "trial" initiative the money came from.

You can be for canceling blatant waste in one smaller aspect of government without surrendering the belief that the larger process is messed up.

Bob Dole
04-23-2009, 05:18 AM
So funding educational research, improving infrastructure and installing technology in K-12 classrooms is "pork"?

There are a few items on that list that are questionable, but for the most part it looks like legit spending.

patteeu
04-23-2009, 09:33 AM
I think this is an important point.

Obama's recent pledge to reduce the budget by a few dollars was widely ridiculed, and for good reason. Cabinet offices should reduce waste as he directed, but you can only save so much there. It's the equivalent of trying to solve thousands in credit card debt by starting to recycle.

If I was a member of the press, or a random town hall member, I'd ask: "You've called for sacrifices from those making over $250,000 through tax hikes and have been critical of Wall Street. But, what concrete sacrifies, either through tax increase or budget decreases, would you ask from Americans falling below that threshold that have contributed significantly to our problems?"

That's an important question to me, and something I want answered quickly. We aren't going to get the budget in order by reforming health care, as much as I support the end goals behind that reform. And, now more than ever, we have to figure out the long term sustainability of our budget.

But I don't consider earmarks to be a distraction from this end goal. The earmarks are, by nature, a corrupt process. I was just running in Columbia, MO the other day and on one of the trails there was a big courtyard area that had a sign saying "With thanks to Sen. Kit Bond", and then a line saying what government "trial" initiative the money came from.

You can be for canceling blatant waste in one smaller aspect of government without surrendering the belief that the larger process is messed up.

That's true and I agree that the earmark process is a corrupt process that makes it harder to restrain spending. In the cases of the few politicians who are really committed to restraining spending, I wouldn't consider calls to end/reform the earmark process a distraction. But most politicians use an anti-earmark position as cover for their otherwise big spending preferences. In those cases, it is a distraction.