help me out here, what exactly is pork barrell spending/earmarks

Search

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
from what i read its approved money that the state senator tries to get for spending in his state for various projects.

obama got 932 million in earmarks, what exactly is the big deal. shouldn't we be impressed he was able to get that much for his state?

i may be interpreting this wrong so don't go crazy on me yet.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,223
Tokens
Its not as big as the politicians try to make it. Its like .001 percent of our budget
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
Yes, we send people to Congress to look after the interests of their constituents. But no to be so parochial that they put those interests above the well being of the nation as a whole.

$932M in earmarks for Illinois is more than a bit beyond the realm of decency.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
Yes, we send people to Congress to look after the interests of their constituents. But no to be so parochial that they put those interests above the well being of the nation as a whole.

$932M in earmarks for Illinois is more than a bit beyond the realm of decency.

whats a reasonable amount to get then in earmarks. wouldnt illini voters want to re-elect obama since he was able to get so much money for the state. if he got little , wouldn't they want to get rid of him?
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
whats a reasonable amount to get then in earmarks. wouldnt illini voters want to re-elect obama since he was able to get so much money for the state. if he got little , wouldn't they want to get rid of him?

It depends. Unless an earmark is something that is going to benefit significant portion of the population, it is probably unnecessary. IMO, 99% are inserted into bills just to line the pockets of a few good ole boys back home.

I'd think Illini voters would want to put the interests of the country first, since that is ultimately in their long term interests.

In any case, if that was Obama's objective he should be concentrating on getting re-elected in Illinois.
 

Uno

Ban Teddy
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,057
Tokens
It depends. Unless an earmark is something that is going to benefit significant portion of the population, it is probably unnecessary. IMO, 99% are inserted into bills just to line the pockets of a few good ole boys back home.

I'd think Illini voters would want to put the interests of the country first, since that is ultimately in their long term interests.

In any case, if that was Obama's objective he should be concentrating on getting re-elected in Illinois.

problem with this is people interject their opinion to a subject they know little about. no offense Mama T. as i don't know much about it myself but when you say blah blah blah IMO i would look for you to link something credible that that opinion is formed on.

i don't know what that 900+ million was used on. personally i am against earmarks but i am annoyed by peoples assumptions based on the matter.

the numbers that should bother people are 770B bailout and 600B now spent on Iraq.

the conversation about earmarks is a simple distraction.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
problem with this is people interject their opinion to a subject they know little about. no offense Mama T. as i don't know much about it myself but when you say blah blah blah IMO i would look for you to link something credible that that opinion is formed on.

i don't know what that 900+ million was used on. personally i am against earmarks but i am annoyed by peoples assumptions based on the matter.

the numbers that should bother people are 770B bailout and 600B now spent on Iraq.

the conversation about earmarks is a simple distraction.


http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621...terstitialskip

I rest my case. And no offense, Pally, but the topic of this thread is EARMARKS. NOT THE WAR IN IRAQ. NOT BAILOUTS.

So if I offended you by addressing the topic at hand, EXCUUUUUUSE MEEEEE!!!
 

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
5,120
Tokens
from what i read its approved money that the state senator tries to get for spending in his state for various projects.

obama got 932 million in earmarks, what exactly is the big deal. shouldn't we be impressed he was able to get that much for his state?

i may be interpreting this wrong so don't go crazy on me yet.


How are you a grad student and you don't know what earmarks are? Do you go to Turnpike Tech?
 

Uno

Ban Teddy
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,057
Tokens
McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18
billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent.
 

Uno

Ban Teddy
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,057
Tokens
And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before.

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
its like 2% of spending

just a talking point for mccain to make to act like he's for slashing government spending it'll hardly make a dent

plus earmarking is just the process to nab a piece of the pie and spend taxpayer money that is already there......its a way to allow the various congressman to fight over the money that has already been taken from us via taxes or has been appropriated to be spent by taking on more debt
 

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
5,120
Tokens
Mccain would be a bad president...

but Obama would be like middle eastern oil on a fire at this fragile time. He could led us into another great depression.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
While everyone will tell you it's the bane of spending, it's not all that significant, not compared to the boondoggle spending that's been going on to wrongly occupy Iraq.

Not even close. Sarah, you can have your bridge, just give up on the religious war shit baby.

:lol:
 

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
5,120
Tokens
Why does everybody want to pick on Sarah? Obama isn't inexperienced?
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
Definition of Earmark or Pork Spending

Definition
Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents.

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.


Wikipedia.


wil.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
just dont see where mccain is coming from on this. i dont see why its wrong to get as much money as possible for your state, but thats just me. have to see a list of the projects though.
 

Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
5,120
Tokens
Because that money comes from somewhere... taxpayers.

Everybody pools their money together, and then we have leaches for congressman, and 4,000 lobbyists in Washington fighting for that money. My money... tax payers money.

Every single interest group says they NEED the money... for this cause, that cause. etc. Go read up on what Jefferson said about these "factions"... or the biggest faction of all... the democratic party. It stands for nothing, it is just one gigantic coalition of special interest groups that banded together to more easily steal that giant pot of money. The party is run dishonest lawyers too from Edwards, Hillary to Obama.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,877
Messages
13,574,560
Members
100,879
Latest member
am_sports
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com