The Truth About Earmarks
Find a Conversation
The Truth About Earmarks
| Wed, 09-10-2008 - 4:37pm |
(this may also satisfy ciara's curiosity from an earlier thread):
John Cole (a conservative, former GOP voter) reminds us what's at stake, and why "earmarks" are a pretty small piece of the puzzle:
Exactly right.
John Cole (a conservative, former GOP voter) reminds us what's at stake, and why "earmarks" are a pretty small piece of the puzzle:
The total national debt, as I write this, is $9,679,000,000,000.00 (nine and a half trillion).The Budget for 2008 is close to $3,000,000,000,000.00 (three trillion).
Our budget deficit for this year is going to range in between $400-500,000,000,000.00 (four hundred to five hundred billion, give or take a few billion).
The total value of wasteful earmarks in 2008 (according to CAGW) will be approximately $18,000,000,000.00 (eighteen billion).
In other words, when McCain talks about earmarks, he is talking about 3% of our annual budget deficit, .6% of our annual budget, and a number too small to even report when discussing our national debt. Or, put another way, he is talking about two months in Iraq, something he wants to keep going indefinitely.
Not only are they lying about Palin’s involvements with earmarks, they are just not being serious about the horrible economic problems we face. These are not serious people.
Exactly right.

Pages
<<$18 Billion sounds significant...41% of the budget sounds even more significant. >>
<>
Earmarks: $18 billion
2008 Budget: $3 trillion
Earmarks are less than 1% of the budget, not 41%. (Perhaps you missed that in corrigenda's reply.)
The projected deficit for this year (around 15% of the budget)is more than double last year's deficit.
I'm not sure where you got the 41%, but you might find this link helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM
<<< She was entitled to the per diem. Everything was transparent, above board and by the book. If you want to attack Palin, you’ll have to do it with more than propaganda.
ROFLOLOLOLOL! THAT'S your explanation? That she was "technically entitled" to it? Man, Dick Cheney would be proud. Hey, perhaps that's a good slogan for McCain/Palin '08: "In Your Heart, You Know They're Technically Correct!"
Actually, no...she was "legally" entitled to it.
*** Awe-inspiring.
She is rather, isn't she?
*** Of course, back here on a place many (okay, nearly six billion) of us like to refer to as "Planet Earth,"
Considering the number of languages spoken on the planet, I doubt that 6 billion of us refer to it as "Planet Earth." But hey, what's a little (or a lot) spin coming from the left?
*** we'd call that "effluent outfall" - i.e.: raw sewage.
No, not really.
*** You know as well as I do that billing the state for nights you spend in your own freaking home is wrong, you just won't admit it because it's politically inconvenient for you to do so.
No, it's not wrong and if you'd actually read something besides the lib propaganda, you might one day develop an argument that could convince someone who doesn't need to drive an hour or so to get out of left field.
<<< Facts aren't tedious...they simply are.
*** Well, that's certainly what ***I*** always thought....but you seem to be burdened by the attempts to deny them - and I imagine that would take quite a bit of energy to maintain. :o)
Not at all...reading and accepting the facts doesn't really require the kind of energy that the left expends to spin and spin and spin.
<<< It's your propaganda...you support it.
*** I did, elsewhere in this same thread. If you can't be bothered to read THIS thread, then I can't be bothered to take your bloviations seriously.
Sorry, but I don't like reading lies and propaganda. When you have something more to offer to support your spurious arguments I'll be happy to take a peek. Until then, your propaganda will be seen as just that.
*** <<$18 Billion sounds significant...41% of the budget sounds even more significant. >>
<>
Earmarks: $18 billion
2008 Budget: $3 trillion
*** Earmarks are less than 1% of the budget, not 41%. (Perhaps you missed that in corrigenda's reply.)
I always assume that his posts are full of propaganda, so no, I don't usually take them very seriously at all. ; )
*** The projected deficit for this year (around 15% of the budget)is more than double last year's deficit.
Boy, I sure hope Obama doesn't get elected, he'll drive us into the ground for sure.
*** I'm not sure where you got the 41%, but you might find this link helpful.
It was reported by another member.
"The total value of wasteful earmarks in 2008 (according to CAGW) will be approximately $18,000,000,000.00 (eighteen billion)."
Yip, that’s only about $60 for every man woman and child in the US, not enough to worry about, let’s move on.
I know who it is, recognized the response style many posts back.
Which as I noted to our resident physician earlier today is simply politician-speak for an excuse to kill some earmarks yet not others based on some nebulous definition which nobody in Congress will agree on.
Pages