Please Help me Understand
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
2008-09-12 4:19 PM |
Champion 5345 Carlsbad, California | Subject: Please Help me Understand Ok, so I get the whole bit about "Earmarks" being an unfashionable bit of legislative crafting at the moment. For those who are unfamiliar with what an earmark actually is: I know that both candidates have spoken out against the practice and that is fine. It just means that both are committed to ending the practice. (Something that would be good for a presidential candidate to state) Would you really trust a candidate more if they chose to take a "Vow of Chastity" when it comes to funding for the state they represent and not engage in the practice? I guess we could look at it from the reverse side of things. Which candidates were against the "Line Item Veto" as a Senator and what is their current view on the subject now? (Are they really willing to fight for that power as a president?) |
|
2008-09-12 4:22 PM in reply to: #1671224 |
Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand Everything you need to know you learned in grade school. As in: "I don't do earmarks, and neither does she" "Yes she did, neener neener" It's not about the earmarks (otherwise Mr. Biden would be in a few crosshairs), it's about claims about earmarks. It's only slightly above the 3 a.m. phone call and lipstick issues in the scheme of relevant issues and who will make the best President Edited by ChrisM 2008-09-12 4:23 PM |
2008-09-12 4:32 PM in reply to: #1671224 |
Giver 18426 | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand So the way I understand it is earmarks are riders attached to bigger bills. So, it could be a few million for some arts thing in Tennessee attached to, say, a defense funding bill. Usually, they exist as a means of getting congressmen who may otherwise be opposed to a bill to sign off. Kind of legislative quid pro quo. |
2008-09-12 4:38 PM in reply to: #1671251 |
Champion 5345 Carlsbad, California | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand run4yrlif - 2008-09-12 2:32 PM So the way I understand it is earmarks are riders attached to bigger bills. So, it could be a few million for some arts thing in Tennessee attached to, say, a defense funding bill. Usually, they exist as a means of getting congressmen who may otherwise be opposed to a bill to sign off. Kind of legislative quid pro quo. Oh, Agreed; they can certainly be silly and somewhat counterintuitive. (Like your example of a Defense Funding Bill that allocates a portion of the funds to go toward some specific thing that is completely unrelated to Defense. But they are not only legal, but as you pointed out, a gear that makes our political process whir along. (At least for the moment it does) It would seem at first blush to be a bit two faced to be speaking out against a tool that you used in the past. But then, Earmarks are not a Presidential Power. ETA: Thanks for your responses Edited by WaterDog66 2008-09-12 4:39 PM |
2008-09-12 4:42 PM in reply to: #1671224 |
Mountain View, CA | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand First off, I'll say that in the big picture of issues in this election, I don't think that earmarks are terribly important. There's a lot of other stuff going on that I think deserves more time from the candidates: what they're going to do about the economy, proposals for improving people's access to health insurance, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and so on. But maybe that's just me. I'm not terribly bothered by the use of earmarks. Although abuse happens, it's a well established means of appropriating funds (and manipulating votes) and I'm not surprised when members of Congress make use of it to secure funds for their state or district. If people want to reform things, I certainly won't object, as it's certainly an imperfect system. (For example, if scientists want $3.2M to study the DNA of harbor seals, they ought to go through a peer review proposal/grant process rather than just getting the earmark.) So no, in response to your question about the vow of chastity, I don't think I'd trust the person any more or less. What does bother me is misrepresentation of one's record, or going against one's previously stated principles in the interest of political expediency--on earmarks or anything else. McCain and Palin are now running on a reform ticket. Okay, fine. And I'm even willing to overlook some of the two-facedness, as you put it, involved in speaking out against something of which one has recently taken advantage. But some of the statements they're making about Palin's past earmark requests are inaccurate, have been shown to be inaccurate, and yet are still being made by them. That's my biggest problem with the earmark issue. |
2008-09-12 4:44 PM in reply to: #1671264 |
Giver 18426 | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand Yeah...I talked about it in some thread a couple of weeks ago. They're perceived as shady because in theory at least, if you want money for something in your district/state, you should just go through the funding process. Bigger than that, when the projects seem "wasteful", it's perceived as unneeded government spending. But what people don't understand is many times they are used to "reach across the aisles"--to get bipartisan support for important (theoretically) legislation. It'd be interesting to look at how many bills go through without earmarks, and conversely, how few bills would actually get passed if earmarks didn't exist. My guess is both numbers would be extremely small. Edited by run4yrlif 2008-09-12 4:44 PM |
|
2008-09-12 4:56 PM in reply to: #1671271 |
Champion 5345 Carlsbad, California | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand puellasolis - 2008-09-12 2:42 PM What does bother me is misrepresentation of one's record, or going against one's previously stated principles in the interest of political expediency--on earmarks or anything else. McCain and Palin are now running on a reform ticket. Okay, fine. And I'm even willing to overlook some of the two-facedness, as you put it, involved in speaking out against something of which one has recently taken advantage. But some of the statements they're making about Palin's past earmark requests are inaccurate, have been shown to be inaccurate, and yet are still being made by them. That's my biggest problem with the earmark issue. Now that is what I was looking for. I just did not understand the whole "Punch Stat" thing where the media were counting up the earmarks for comparison purposes. (And comparing candidates records) Seems like a pretty bush league mistake to try to mislead someone about your voting record. (Either in Congress or in some other public office) Voting records are matter of public knowledge and it does not take much to "Out Someone" for not speaking the truth. |
2008-09-12 4:57 PM in reply to: #1671230 |
Master 1821 | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand ChrisM - 2008-09-12 5:22 PM It's not about the earmarks (otherwise Mr. Biden would be in a few crosshairs), it's about claims about earmarks. yup. lots of other important issues, and as a percentage of the national budget, earmarks are relatively small. but as one who is firing up the roaster, for me, it goes to credibility. tommy flanagan wouldn't make a good president. she has told the "bridge to nowhere" lie about 25 times now even though it has been extensively and thoroughly debunked. if you're going to take a virtual unknown, thrust her into the national spotlight, and try to create an image for her, it's laughable when that image is directly contradicted by her own record, and when her running mate mocks a part of that record. and it all goes back to the idea that *this* is who john mccain in his best judgment thought was the best candidate for veep. |
2008-09-12 5:00 PM in reply to: #1671273 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand run4yrlif - 2008-09-12 4:44 PM Yeah...I talked about it in some thread a couple of weeks ago. They're perceived as shady because in theory at least, if you want money for something in your district/state, you should just go through the funding process. Bigger than that, when the projects seem "wasteful", it's perceived as unneeded government spending. But what people don't understand is many times they are used to "reach across the aisles"--to get bipartisan support for important (theoretically) legislation. It'd be interesting to look at how many bills go through without earmarks, and conversely, how few bills would actually get passed if earmarks didn't exist. My guess is both numbers would be extremely small. Holy carp - Jim and I agreed on something!!!!! |
2008-09-12 5:03 PM in reply to: #1671296 |
Champion 5345 Carlsbad, California | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand jimbo - 2008-09-12 2:57 PM yup. lots of other important issues, and as a percentage of the national budget, earmarks are relatively small. I hear ya there; that is the whole reason why I continue to be amazed at how easily the media (And the Voting Public) can become fixated on the position of the deckchairs on the weather deck as the Titanic Sinks into the deep blue sea. but as one who is firing up the roaster, for me, it goes to credibility. tommy flanagan wouldn't make a good president. she has told the "bridge to nowhere" lie about 25 times now even though it has been extensively and thoroughly debunked. if you're going to take a virtual unknown, thrust her into the national spotlight, and try to create an image for her, it's laughable when that image is directly contradicted by her own record, and when her running mate mocks a part of that record. and it all goes back to the idea that *this* is who john mccain in his best judgment thought was the best candidate for veep. Yeah, I think the post above also suggested that the real issue comes down to honesty about one's voting record. I agree that misrepresenting someone's voting record does indeed "Fire Up the Roaster". Sort of like little Timmy lying about eating the whole box of Chocolate Donuts with Brown Crumbs all over his face Edited by WaterDog66 2008-09-12 5:03 PM |
2008-09-12 7:08 PM in reply to: #1671224 |
Extreme Veteran 580 Kansas City, MO | Subject: RE: Please Help me Understand Eh. Earmarks = pork, and that's the real issue. We're running an incredible deficit as a country, and ANY excess spending for pet projects should come under the microscope. I'm not confident we can ever fix earmark pork without a line item veto, but if the public gets worked up enough about it, maybe we can curtail it some. Not that it's a huge amount compared to the overall budget, or the defecit, but you have to start somewhere. Can read a little bit about it here . Edited by ColdRingo6 2008-09-12 7:09 PM |
|
2008-09-12 8:36 PM in reply to: #1671477 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |