Earmark ban defeated

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by ptif219, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The senators that voted against show they do not care about national debt. These senators need to go


    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290026/earmark-vote-reactions-jack-fowler


     
  2. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, they all need to go. We will never get corruption under control until congress has a single term limit. In the mean time our only hope is to replace all of them at every election.
     
  3. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The idea that earmarks are inherently bad is flawed and simplistic logic. All local projects, be they bridges, roads, schools, or police, which receive federal funding are earmarks. The idea that there is not a single good thing federal dollars can do is simply illogical.
     
  4. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you are saying is ear marks is actually part of the budget

    These are earmarks

    http://www.economiccollapse.net/the...ples-of-federal-spending-in-2010#.TzM1ziNQT9w
     
  5. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I showed earmarks you showed budget items. Bridges are what gas taxes and road taxes are used for

    Here are more ear marks

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/porkdecade.htm
     
  7. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No you're simply wrong. Bridge to nowhere, remember that, that's an earmark. Earmarks are localized spending options outside the standard budget added by particular congressmen based on their personal interests or constituencies.
     
  8. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did it get built? No it is money to special interests to buy votes
     
  9. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Earmarks make it too easy for congressmen to bribe each other and to buy votes. Cutting them would remove one method that is used to exercise corruption.
     
  10. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Local projects should never receive federal dollars. In fact, it should be illegal for the federal government to send money to state or local government since they are themselves taxing entities. That is how states rights have been trampled by the federal government.
     
  11. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's because they are. They are a portion of appropriated funds set aside for a specific purpose. If those funds were not earmarked, it would be up to the appropriate federal agencies to decide how the money will be spent. In essence, people pushing for an earmark ban are pushing to have marginally accountable elected officials hand over the power to decide how money will be spent to unaccountable unelected bureaucrats. While this is probably better from a technocratic standpoint (the bureaucrats will certainly do a better job of deciding how it should be used, due to expertise and additional information), it is not so good from an accountability and responsible government standpoint.
     
  12. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is a curious tendency in American political debate to refer to "the American people" as "special interests." Why is vote buying wrong? Shouldn't a representative or senator be "buying votes" from his constituents by adequately representing their interests in his elected office?
     
  13. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every machine needs grease. Earmarks are a relatively benign way to grease the wheels of government, so to speak. A congress of nothing but morally opaque ideologues would do nothing while the country fell apart around them.
     
  14. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's silly. Building an exchange on an interstate certainly ought to include federal dollars, for example. Projects undertaken in order to meet federal mandates ought to be funded, for another example. Plenty of projects ought to receive federal dollars.

    States rights got trampled because of states' abuse.
     
  15. KSigMason

    KSigMason Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everyone who voted against this should be top of the list for acting against the interest of their people and ensuring some extra padding to their wallets.
     

Share This Page