Dems cast Rush as spokesman for GOP

[Lurker]

Dodging? I think I've made my feelings about earmarks perfectly clear.

There's nothing wrong with directed spending. Earmarks do not equal wasted spending or even extra spending. While wasteful spending does happen, with or without earmarks, it is not the norm.

Now why don't you respond to my post here. Don't you think we deserve a little honesty from our elected officials?

[Embar Angylwrath]

So.. as long as our elected officals "direct" the spending, its ok? Doesn't matter what its for? Are you ok with the "directed spending" on the Bridge to Nowhere, .. and forget about deflecting this against Palin's honesty... are you ok with the spending taxpayer dollars on a project that benefits hardly anyone?

[Lurker]

How drunk are you right now, Embar? Seriously.

[Kulaf]

Think of it this way Lurker.....earmarks "can" add to overall spending because it encourages congressmen to add additional funding for the earmarked projects possibly above and beyond what their state actually needs or requested. So while technically they do not add to spending after the fact......they can certainly influence overall spending when allocations are determined.

[Ddrak]

I don't see that your positions are actually conflicting. Lurker is saying "earmarks" is not a synonym for "wasteful spending" while Embar seems to be talking about earmarks in the context of the wasteful ones rather than the earmarks for constructive stuff.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

If he can dodge a wrench he can dodge a ball.

[Klast Brell]

That said... why would anyone defend those types of unnecessary expenditures.

Because it brings lots of good payng jobs to your state.

Everyone in congress takes a firm stand against earmarks in 49 states. I went to McCain.senate.gov and looked at his extensive list of wasteful earmarks. They were all conveniently labeled with the state where the money goes. He couldn't find a single wasteful earmark going to Arizona.

[Lurker]

Think of it this way Lurker.....earmarks "can" add to overall spending because it encourages congressmen to add additional funding for the earmarked projects possibly above and beyond what their state actually needs or requested. So while technically they do not add to spending after the fact......they can certainly influence overall spending when allocations are determined.

Point taken.

I don't see that your positions are actually conflicting. Lurker is saying "earmarks" is not a synonym for "wasteful spending" while Embar seems to be talking about earmarks in the context of the wasteful ones rather than the earmarks for constructive stuff.

Here's the problem with people that demagogue the earmark issue. They throw around the number and dollar amount for every earmark, not just the "wasteful spending". When they single out examples of "waste" they don't care if it's actual waste as long as the title of the earmark sounds funny. And finally, they are treating a minor issue (even when counting every earmark) as if it was bringing our entire system down.

Embar made a good point about the death row population being a fraction of one percent of the general population. Eliminating the entire death row population would result in an little savings or extra prison space. His point applies to earmarks as well even if he refuses to see it.

[Kulaf]

Earmarks are like a growth on your ass. Sure not all of them may be cancerous......but you'd still rather not have them there in the first place. It's a symptom of waste and wasteful thinking in Washington.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Aren't earmarks just pre-allocated spending? Like for a family budget setting aside money for things it knows it's going to need like doing an oil change on the car and buying a new TV and such? How is stating what the money will be used for in advance evil? Isn't that preferable to just giving someone money and hoping they use it for its intended purpose?

Doesn't seem any different than handing my teenager money and telling him to use it for this week's lunches.

[Kulaf]

No.....because a "budget" means you have a fixed amount you can spend and you are deciding where it goes. When you have no constraints on what you can spend then it's nothing at all like a budget.

[Lurker]

Earmarks are ... a symptom of waste and wasteful thinking in Washington.

That's totally ass backwards. It doesn't follow logically that earmarks are a symptom of waste just because they have been used on occasion for wasteful spending. There is nothing inherently wrong with directed spending, the system has been improving greatly since transparency rules were implemented in 2007, and today Obama laid out additional rules he'd like to see.

Freecare,
Yes, for the most part. People that make it the issue to end all issues, like McCain, are either dishonest or complete morons. Eliminating all earmarks would result in almost zero savings even taking into account the point Kulaf made.

Kulaf,
Your last post makes no sense.

[Kulaf]

What didn't you understand?

[Lurker]

Well... not only was what you said factually wrong since budgets can include deficit spending funded with borrowing (for governments, businesses, and even families), but it didn't negate Freecare's point.

[Kulaf]

It's not a budget in the sense that the person "putting money away" is not the person doing the buying/spending. If you want to draw an analogy then it is more like a gift. Where some of the gift is in the form of cash and some of the gift is in the form of a pretermined "thing".

So when great aunt Pelosi gives you $100 and a hideous pink bunny costume remember to thank her.

[Lurker]

That post made even less sense than the last one. If you want to say it's not a budget fine. I don't see a need to follow you down that rabbit hole.

The bottom line is that Freecare was correct. Earmarks are directed spending, just like if Free gives his kid money and tells them to buy lunch with it, and there's nothing inherently wrong with the practice. People fixated on earmarks as a huge issue are idiots or liars.

[Embar Angylwrath]

That post made even less sense than the last one. If you want to say it's not a budget fine. I don't see a need to follow you down that rabbit hole.

The bottom line is that Freecare was correct. Earmarks are directed spending, just like if Free gives his kid money and tells them to buy lunch with it, and there's nothing inherently wrong with the practice. People fixated on earmarks as a huge issue are idiots or liars.

It's wrong if Freecare gives his kids the next door neighbors money and tells them to buy lunch with it, and that's where your argument falls apart Lurker. It's not Congress' money, its the taxpayers money. And if you have to borrow the taxpayer's children's money to pay for the earmark/pork, then its even worse. That would be like Freecare going next door, breaking the kid's piggy bank, and using the money to buy himself an ounce of dope, a houseplant, or rent a movie. And that's what Congress is doing with every spending allocation they make. Why spend more than you have to?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

That would be like Freecare going next door, breaking the kid's piggy bank, and using the money to buy himself an ounce of dope

Shhhh not so loud. You weren't supposed to know about that.

[Lurker]

Is it dumb analogy day or something?

The Federal Government spending tax revenue is nothing like stealing from your neighbors children, or their children's children when we run a deficit. What a stupid analogy. Do you make feel the same way about tax cuts when we are in deficit? That's nothing but Federal spending funded by borrowing after all.

Why spend more than you have to? You haven't shown that the earmarks were wasteful and you haven't established what dollar amount we need to spend to get out of our current crisis. And sad as it is, we're going to have to do it with borrowed money. We have no choice because the last President ran huge deficits while the economy was growing.

I'll say again... people fixated on earmarks are idiots or liars. You are incapable of tackling real problems when you focus so intently on such a minor issue.

[Ddrak]

earmark/pork

There's the issue. Embar is equating earmarks with pork. Lurker's saying it's not the same thing - pork is a small subset of the actual earmarks. If people were actually arguing about the same thing it would help.

Dd