Democrats really cutting earmarks?

[Thorgrim]

Oh yeah, people went to the polls in droves in 2006 because of earmarks...give me a break

I can't debate a thread where the very basis is flawed

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Money down the drain. Both parties are doing it. Only one man running for president would actually do something about it.

Ron Paul M.D., correct?

YouTube Video

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Oh yeah, people went to the polls in droves in 2006 because of earmarks...give me a break

I can't debate a thread where the very basis is flawed

I wasn't aware the basis of the thread had anything to with polls or elections

Nobody is forced to participate in a thread.

[WickedLou9]

I think that any spending bills should have to stand on thier own merit. IE you can't tack on a provision giving money to some group or cause or whatever if it's not related. Like adding on a min wage increase to a troop funding bill. If you want to pass a min wage increase, the bill should be about nothing other than the min wage. If we did that, most of these ear-marks would never see the light of day.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I wasn't aware the basis of the thread had anything to with polls or elections

Nobody is forced to participate in a thread.

Well, we all know that one of the major talking points of the new Democratic Congress is the reduction of earmarks to reign in the massive spending of the Republican Congress.

Beginning of the post

I am merely pointing out why I don't think I can answer the question but at the same time I'd like to point out that democrats don't have a problem

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Beginning of the post

I am merely pointing out why I don't think I can answer the question but at the same time I'd like to point out that democrats don't have a problem

I still don't understand. He's clearly admitting massive spending, and one of the talking points and key issues for the Democrats was cutting spending. Regardless, of what the top reasons people voted for, his statements are true and he criticizes both Republicans and Democrats.

I'm not sure I'm following.

[Thorgrim]

Key issue wasn't "cutting spending" they've been hinting at universal healthcare forever and that will clearly drive up spending

unless you mean...ending the iraq war...

And if you are talking about corruption, we are talking about bob ney and duke selling their votes, family values members trying to molest little boys, hastert covering it up, abramoff bribing republicans

I heard "republicans promised to cut spending and they're spending like crazy" but I never heard that followed up by "we're going to drastically cut domestic spending"

simply
not
true

and about "major points" implying thats what the message being out was...and thats what people picked and thought:


NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 8-11, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Let me list some issues that have been proposed for the federal government to address. Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government. [See below.]" If more than one: "Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?"

The war in Iraq 34%
Health care 15%
Illegal immigration 12%
Terrorism 12%
Job creation and economic growth 8%
Energy and the cost of gas 6%
The environment and global warming 6%
Reducing the federal budget deficit 4%
All equally (vol.) 3%

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Key issue wasn't "cutting spending" they've been hinting at universal healthcare forever and that will clearly drive up spending

It was completely a key issue. All we heard up and down all day long was they were going to come in and kick out the corruption and spending. It was a huge issue the Democrats pushed. The budget is always a major issue with elections, regardless of whether or not it's a top 5 issue during a time of war.

It still doesn't really have any relevance to the first post. Just because it wasn't the number 1 reason for voters doesn't mean much. People say Republicans took Congress in many states because of Gay marriage. But if you polled them I'm willing to bet very few said it was their number one reason...

Back to a response on topic of discussion...

I think that any spending bills should have to stand on thier own merit. IE you can't tack on a provision giving money to some group or cause or whatever if it's not related. Like adding on a min wage increase to a troop funding bill. If you want to pass a min wage increase, the bill should be about nothing other than the min wage. If we did that, most of these ear-marks would never see the light of day.

I agree. But a lot of these spending jobs get added on after the bill already passes and they're not voted on (hence earmarks). That's the problem. Murtha is basically the head honcho in charge there and when he was questioned about unethical earmarks of his own he flipped out and was later forced to apologize. The real issue here is really what Ballz has been saying. The Republicans are spending like crazy, and although the Democrats promised to do something about it and clean up spending/corruption they really haven't done anything at all. Murtha's position and all these earmarks are a testament to that.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When the Republicans cut earmarks, i'll care if the Democrats do or not.

Oh, that's real responcibility from the Congress we are talking about.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think that any spending bills should have to stand on thier own merit. IE you can't tack on a provision giving money to some group or cause or whatever if it's not related. Like adding on a min wage increase to a troop funding bill. If you want to pass a min wage increase, the bill should be about nothing other than the min wage. If we did that, most of these ear-marks would never see the light of day.

I doubt either party wants to move in this direction. And it is not all the fault of the members. Everytime people vote for the guy who promises to bring home more of the Federal Pie to your town they help encourage the process!

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Oh, that's real responcibility from the Congress we are talking about.

There are Republicans in that Congress too, no? There was a Republican Congress before and were the earmarks cut then? Save the partisanship for some other forum.