Earmarks

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
How do you feel?

I'm finally watching the second debate (Hulu) and McCain just mentioned the Boeing tanker deal that he fucked over... there was a $35b contract that Air Force was looking to make for tankers, McCain fought against Boeing and for Northrop so now that $35b is going to a French company instead of an American company. It hurts Boeing's bottom line so it hurts Washington's state economy -- it hurts America's economy because that $35b is American taxpayers' money that's going overseas to fund French jobs (instead of American money funding American jobs)... when you consider those American Boeing workers would be paying about 25% tax the Boeing contract would've had a much lower bottom-line cost (a fourth of the $35b going back to Uncle Sam) even when you exclude the economic stimulus of the remaining 75%. McCain fought for something that hurts Americans and America's economy and now tries to use it as a poster child for his opposition of ear marks.

Anyway, that's a little off-topic because I'm bitter about McCain fighting to fuck over us Americans -- my point is that earmarks really aren't that big of a problem, if a problem at all. Don't you agree? Does any American actually think earmarks are of any significant concern? He singles out a little that seems extravagant... a "$3 million dollar projector" (which was in fact a planetarium), whatever for the bear study, etc... but those funds are usually reasonable and they help stimulate our economy in other ways. His three big "ear mark" opponents seem to be funding arts & sciences & construction. Arts & sciences need more funding, not less, and construction stimulates the economy.

Let's not even get started on how tiny a drop in the bucket ear marks are in the big picture -- let's talk about whether or not they're wasteful to begin with.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Define "waste"[/quote]

Improper use, inefficiency, mismanagement, etc. You know where I'm going with this.

Rethink your argument and come back later, kid.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Let's not even get started on how tiny a drop in the bucket ear marks are in the big picture -- let's talk about whether or not they're wasteful to begin with.[/QUOTE]






but fine, let's pretend these funds are being used inefficiently.

Giving $35b to an efficient French company > giving $35b to an inefficient American company?

Or how about the planetarium -- no planetarium > an overpriced planetarium?

No research > inefficient research?


...


Please.
 
I think earmarks are demoralizing more then anything else.
Many Americans have no idea what execs do. They don't realize that many of these execs continue to widen the economic gap at the expense of their poorest and most vulnerable workers, and that many of the execs who got us in this mess did it all while producing nothing. Instead Joe and Jane Sixpack gorge on tantilizing BS rags-to-riches mythology so much that they start to believe that the real-life execs completely deserve their half-million spa retreats and golden parachutes. Just look at the proliferation of shows such as "The Apprentice", "The OC", or "The Trashy Housewives of LA". It's taken the financial equivelent of a heart attack for people to start waking up.
But all people understand earmarks. It's political corruption in it's most naked and transparent form. Learning that some politically-connected Oregon yokel just scored $2 mil in free govt cash to make arrows for kids just before you trudge down to your part-time dollar store job (all the time praying that a med emergency doesn't bankrupt you) is damn demoralizing.

Edit: There is, of course, the wars too. But half a decade of Dubya-sponsored FUD has insured noone knows what goal we're fighting to attain anymore (of course there are individual opinions, I'm talking in an official national policy sense)
 
Ok, fine. You win Koggit. Let's all tell our senators to put whatever pet projects they want in bills so they can all be happy. Let's build hundreds of bridges to nowhere, except this time we'll actually have them end at nowhere. This is the only way America can prosper. After all, money comes from magic.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-earmark.html

Credit goes to my professor for pointing this out in his blog. How about we stop talking about bullshit and get down to some real issues? This is such a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion because of idiot voters that it sickens me.[/quote]

But your professor's not arguing that earmarks are good, is he?

This isn't an argument about McCain's plans. It's about the idea of earmarks in general. Unless I misunderstood Koggit's argument through all the shit he was spewing.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-earmark.html

Credit goes to my professor for pointing this out in his blog. How about we stop talking about bullshit and get down to some real issues? This is such a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion because of idiot voters that it sickens me.[/QUOTE]

We need to make that graph into a size 4XL shirt and hire a fat guy to follow McCain in it, getting in every photo op that McCain poses for

Fat guys are cheap, like $10/hr
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']But your professor's not arguing that earmarks are good, is he?

This isn't an argument about McCain's plans. It's about the idea of earmarks in general. Unless I misunderstood Koggit's argument through all the shit he was spewing.[/QUOTE]

Dude... wtf is your problem? Nobody's going to take you seriously when all you can do is toss around veiled insults... that's like three posts in a row now. Come on.


This isn't the "piss on people for what they believe" forum, contrary to what some here may lead you to believe. Keep it civil.
 
I liked how McCain was harping on earmarks and Obama pointed out how much (little) they actually accounted for when it came to government spending. lol

It's sad that some people are going to run around now with interest in this "STOP EARMARKS!" because they get the impression that they are all totally evil now. Yes, some politicians took them too far (see Palin and bridge to nowhere,) but for the most part they are meant to fund special projects within a district to jumpstart an economy.

Maybe you don't think funding an Aquarium in Maryland is a good idea, it won't benefit you any, but the people in the area think it's extremely important, and your area will have something special going on that MD residents just don't understand.
 
I think some earmarks are used for good things, scholarships, sciences etc. Then there are the ones with no point ala bridge to nowhere. We can't just use a broad brush to paint over all earmarks.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-earmark.html

Credit goes to my professor for pointing this out in his blog. How about we stop talking about bullshit and get down to some real issues? This is such a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion because of idiot voters that it sickens me.[/QUOTE]

I think how relatively minuscule these are was mentioned in the debate but that picture is worth a thousand debates.
 
Focusing on earmarks is akin to throwing away expired foods in your refrigerator while your house is burning down.

With the tax cuts McCain has planned, in addition to not ending the war we're in, one can not balance the federal budget by eliminating items that add up to 6 weeks of what we pay to be in Iraq.

This is beyond a fucking nonissue. The fact of the matter is that the first person, or the first 10 people, to actually suggest real, fundamental, substantial cuts to federal spending are going to lose their (re)election bids by canyon-wide margins. That's because, in order to really reform how we spend money, we need to focus on defense and corrections, where we spend more money than anywhere else.

Go ahead. YOU be the candidate who speaks about wanting to reduce defense spending. Try it. See how far you go. (not that I wouldn't agree with you, but I'm smart and most people aren't).
 
Myke, Clinton cut defense spending by closing old bases and consolidating the organizations structure but conservatives roasted him for being bad for the military. Thing is, I liked being in the military when Clinton was in office. We didn't fight a single war that didn't need to be fought and we got brand new dorms on almost every military installation.
 
[quote name='Koggit']We need to make that graph into a size 4XL shirt and hire a fat guy to follow McCain in it, getting in every photo op that McCain poses for

Fat guys are cheap, like $10/hr[/quote]

Beautiful. Do we have to pay for his meals?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Go ahead. YOU be the candidate who speaks about wanting to reduce defense spending. Try it. See how far you go. (not that I wouldn't agree with you, but I'm smart and most people aren't).[/quote]

Well, there is one candidate that supposedly stands for ending the wars we're fighting sooner then a century from now.

Progress? ;)
 
bread's done
Back
Top