+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3


  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Earmarks?

    Didn't the Republican led House decide to have a moratorium on earmarks? According to this Washington Post article, it doesn't look like that's the way it worked out. Someone was sold a bill of goods.

    After earmark ban, lawmakers try to direct money to hundreds of pet projects - The Washington Post

    My position is earmarks are not necesarily bad per se. From what I understand, earmarks are the only way many legislators can get federal funds for legitimately needed projects in the areas they represent. But what does concern me is that the GOP was supposed to go to Washington with a mission, remember the shellacking in 2010? It is clear that all you die hard Republicans that think the GOP is somehow different than the Democratic party have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Both parties are going to spend, and rightly so, the government does need to spend even though some of us want to grasp onto rhetoric that might state otherwise. But the real issue is integrity; don't come up to me and tell me that you can do a better job than the guy already in place if you are just going to do the same shit that he was doing, because when you have your chance and it is proven you are full of shit because you don't do anything different, you look worse than the guy you replaced.

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #2
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    AV, CA


    This is what gets them re-elected when they can bring the bacon home...

    Limit the federal government back to the original intent and this will never happen on either side unless it's the location of a military base or the other limited realms it was intended to be involved with.

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Newbury Park, Ca/Mohave Valley, Az

    Default So far so good....

    I read the article and although there have been attempts, it appears the rule has stood, so far.... The other thread, about the bill to remove citizens rights about incarceration without due process IS part of the Defense spending bill....That seems a little strange, but in the same bill they are attempting to shore up the law about ONLY Congress can declare WAR, removing any opportunity for a rouge President to start his own war......I consider that a good thing, and in reality, the other big issue is clearly aimed at the detention of terrorists on US dirt without any requirements of Miranda rights...Also a good thing... I see nothing in that bill that would/could affect law abiding citizens that aren't donating money to terrorist organizations... While it is true some of the provisions of the bill would not be constitutional in the true sense, there is a necessity to circumvent a liberal Attorney General dead set on giving our rights to terrorists and trying them in civilian courts.......

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)


Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95