It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reid: Earmarks are 'what we're supposed to do'

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Reid: Earmarks are 'what we're supposed to do'


www.washingtontimes.com

Preparing for a final showdown on the massive $1.1 trillion spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended the thousands of earmarks in the measure as the basic function of Congress.

"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he chastised fellow senators who, while having requested pork-barrel spending earlier this year, are now decrying their inclusion in the spending bill.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The earmarks and other unrequested spending items have put President Obama on the spot, too. He had earlier vowed to veto any bill that contained money for an alternate engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but on Thursday Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the bloated funding bill was better than simply extending last year's spending measure.



And the plot thickens!


www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Plot thickens indeed:

While Attacking Omnibus For Earmarks, McConnell And Senate GOP Asked For Billions For Themselves




Earlier this year, McConnell asked for $4 million for marijuana eradication efforts by the Kentucky National Guard; $1 million for construction of the Kentucky Blood Center Building; and $650,000 for Advanced Genetic Technologies, a DNA research center at the University of Kentucky.

Source

Pot, meet kettle.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


OK, I get it. Part of what Congressmen do is fight for project dollars back in their districts. No problem. We need a new bridge, so I work to get funds for it. Those poor old ladies hobbling to work need to cross the creek. I will come to the rescue. .....eh, not quite.

I will use Joe Lieberman as an example. The poor folks in his district back in Tel Aviv, er.... Connecticut may need a bridge. But the truth is that bridge is only 1% of what he is scratching for. (You can bet he will work to get his name on it though.) The other 99% is for garbage the poor folks will never need and never see.

So Joe's buddy Harry can hide behind this rhetoric of working for the "people" if he feels good about it, but the good folks of Nevada ain't Harry's peeps. Harry and Joe have no peeps. They have clients. Those clients pay them. They get paid to secure very large portions of money and power at the expense and detriment of the peeps in Connecticut and Nevada.

The sad part is, they get paid peanuts for what they hand over.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Reid is an idiot.

If everyone just ignores his dementia fueled arguments, maybe he will go away.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This is exactly why I am so adamantly opposed to increasing taxes on anyone.

$1 million for peanut research in Athens and Tifton,GA.


According to Wikipedia, the first domesticated cultivation of peanuts occurred about 7,600 years ago. Now, I'm no expert, but I'd venture to say that after 7,600 years, we probably know everything there is to know about a freakin' peanut.

I don't care what political party you support, this should infuriate you.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
. . . we probably know everything there is to know about a freakin' peanut . . .

Including the fact that the size of the average peanut is three times larger than the brain in Reid's damn head . . . he's got to be an intellectual dwarf to blurt out that one . . .

Why didn't he just say, Hell, we elected officials have been wasting tax dollars for over two hundred years, an we're doing our best to keep our record perfect for another couple hundred, or until the country goes bankrupt . . . whicheve is first

But that would be speaking honestly . . . something Reid's apparently forgotten they're supposed to do.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Earmarks are bad when the other party requests them but when I request them they are necessary. Both parties are equally guilty of vast amounts of pork and pet projects. They only talk about how bad earmarks are when they arent in power and need a good talking point to spew from atop their box of soap.

Both parties are tax and spend, this is a fact.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


AGREED

A great quote which pretty much sums it up.....



"Though some of my Republican colleagues in recent days have publicly distanced themselves from the idea that members have a role to play in the appropriations process, nearly all of them did nothing privately to withdraw their priorities from this bill," said Reid.

Source


MBF

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
This is exactly why I am so adamantly opposed to increasing taxes on anyone.

$1 million for peanut research in Athens and Tifton,GA.


According to Wikipedia, the first domesticated cultivation of peanuts occurred about 7,600 years ago. Now, I'm no expert, but I'd venture to say that after 7,600 years, we probably know everything there is to know about a freakin' peanut.

I don't care what political party you support, this should infuriate you.


I am a farmer and have been a peanut farmer up until this year and live near Tifton. I can see a need for the research. In about the last 10 years, we have seen the price we get paid for our crop cut in half. At the same time our expenses have over doubled and we have had a severe virus infestation that has cut yields. Peanut farmers can not continue to survive unless we can increase yields, find ways to control new diseases and decrease input costs. The $1 million may sound like a waste to you, but to me it is not nearly enough to solve the problems that need to be solved.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
To an extent, Reid is correct. If he is not there to represent his constitutioncy and bring jobs/money to his people, then WTF is the point of having congressmen? If a congressman can't represent his people's best interests, then we may as well elect congressmen based upon national opinion, rather than local.

To all the "leftists" bashers, don't pretend that your righties don't try to bring in money for your causes. To even imply otherwise implies your ignorance and partisan bias. Or you are extremely naive.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
If you want to have cities, you've got to build roads........



It is so funny how Anti-Government types think parks, roads and municipal services (police, fire etc.) just grow on trees. It's called infrastructure people and it isn't free.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It is so funny how Anti-Government types think parks, roads and municipal services (police, fire etc.) just grow on trees. It's called infrastructure people and it isn't free.


I think those morons believe that they will get by with their wits and an iPhone.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Haha, this reminds of the thread I posted the other day:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The incoming GOP chairman comes straight out and says "Congress exists to serve the banks"...

These criminals are not even trying to HIDE their corruptivity anymore! They are literally thumbing their noses at the masses and laughing at us all.

Bizzare times we are living in...



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
When i saw the name Reid
I thought you ment the bomber
not the bummer...
damn, I hope I didn't give any one any ideas.

They must feel pretty secure to just slap the electorate in the schnozz like that.
This goes well with the "It's rigged" comment from the other day.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 


I mean no disrespect to you. As a matter of fact, I have many friends and family in farming and ranching. But, that $1 million is just a small portion of tax dollars spent on agriculture, which, in my opinion, shouldn't be.

You know, as well as I, that the extraordinary amount of tax dollars given to agriculture is the very reason farming and ranching is becoming consumed by huge corporations. From 1995 to 2009 there was $3.5 billion in subsidies (taxpayer money) to peanut farmers. farm.ewg.org...
I'll get back to you with figures on the many, many different peanut research projects, which the taxpayers fund every year.

I'm not picking on peanut farmers. The numbers are equally high for all areas of agriculture. And we have got to get control of all the spending. I'm sorry, but I was opposed to the Wall Street bailouts and I'm opposed to this form of corporate welfare, as well.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 

I disagree about the peanut research
they are invstigating replacement brains for congress critters



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


So then by your logic you would be opposed to funding The Center for Disease Control to research a cure for potentially lethal pandemic diseases?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I think Ron Paul has the best argument on earmarks. Reid is right. Ironically Reid and Ron Paul are saying the same thing. Except Paul has a conservative agenda, and Reid wants to fund his constituents.



MBF

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 



I can't disagree with you on all of your points, in fact I agree on most. One thing that looks bad on farmers is the amount of money that goes into the agriculture budget doesn't all go to farming. Instead, it goes into the food stamp program and other food give away programs. The biggest problem is that this country has a policy of having cheap food. The price that you pay for food in the store has nothing to do with the price the farmer gets for their crop. If you ever want to make a farmer mad, just take him into a grocery store.

It is hard for the family farm to survive because they don't have access to the money that corporations do. Most farmers that I know will tell you that if it wasn't for the subsidies that we get, they would be out of business. Big corporations can weather low crop prices and bad weather losses because they have access to huge sums of money that the average farmer doesn't have. Watch out though. When they have a large amount of land you will pay what they tell you to pay for your food. That is something that we can't do now.

Don't put a lot of faith in what the EWG puts on here. Their figures aren't accurate. I know that one year they had me down as receiving the 4th highest amount of subsidies in my county. That's a joke because I'm a small farmer. Every time I would look my info up, I would have received twice the money than I had from the time I had checked before. I haven't looked in a good while, but I'm sure that according to them, I must be a millionaire several times over. I think I'll give them a call and ask them where the hell my money is.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join