Obama's 08' Earmarks vs. McCains

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Not spin.

TRUTH.

Obama is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a senate of 100 in earmarks.

If you and Gaspar were anything other than HYPOCRITS, you'd be railing against Inhofe's pork in the exact same way you're railing against a guy who is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a congress of 100 in use of earmarks... and you'd admit that Sarah Palin is being very disengenuous when she acts like her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" was anything other than a parlor trick to KEEP THE MONEY while pretending to be a "maverick"...

The silence is deafening.

Bringing Inhofe into this as a straw man is an interesting subterfuge.  The original post was about Sen. McCain's earmarks vs. Sen. Obama's.

Last I checked, Sen Inhofe (R-Pork) is not running for President against Sen. Obama (D-Pork).

Inhofe seeking $146mm in earmarks blows Hometown's assertion that Inhofe doesn't try to bring home the bacon out of the water, doesn't it?

I think if Ruf and Waterboy simply went to the US Senate website and used a calculator (I personally like the Casio model SL300VE) to ad up the earmarks for each senator, they would be able to pose far better arguments.  It's far more reliable than the fuzzy-math liberal sites.

But than again, they don't believe that earmarks are a bad thing, so I wonder why they are upset.  They should celebrate earmarks.  May the liberal candidate with the most earmarks win!

Once again you purposely ascribe a view to me that I didn't espouse.... then attack me with it! I didn't say earmarks are good or bad. That's a GB administration view. To them things are good/bad, saintly/evil, liberal/conservative and on, and on.

Earmarks simply are. And if it is generally accepted by Congress and the American people that our earmarks are good and yours are bad, they will remain. Find a better way of meeting the country's needs, convince the above they're counterproductive or get a judgement from the courts that it's illegal and they will go away. Geez, I thought you were a pragmatist.

And I care little for what you think the quality of my arguments are. I also think little of yours or your slippery Republican research.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

But akuptsky...telling a lie is so much more fun.

Ever since Reagan got elected, the republicans have thought that "acting" is more important than "doing". Read the script and don't question the truth.

Line please!

Speaking of reading the script.  You should check out your own candidate...

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
I think if Ruf and Waterboy simply went to the US Senate website and used a calculator (I personally like the Casio model SL300VE)...

Well, that is your problem right there.

How can you call yourself an American when you do all your figuring on a Japanese calculator?

The Xerox xrx-250 gives you correct answers...

[tim huntzinger]

. . . O'Bama's ears are so big he leaves marks on every door frame he enters . . .

[Conan71]

That's it, now Huntzinger has played the ear card...

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

But akuptsky...telling a lie is so much more fun.

Ever since Reagan got elected, the republicans have thought that "acting" is more important than "doing". Read the script and don't question the truth.

Line please!

That's hilarious.  Obama must be lying.  He released the information on the earmarks I mentioned.  

I was waiting for the regular numb-skulls to post a claim that Obama made fewer requests or something, but I didn't expect them to stretch it to $0.

You guys crack me up.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

Oops!  Guess your talking-points are a bit off.
Perhaps it's a right-wing conspiracy?
Those pesky Repubs control the Senate website you know.

Waterboy, while I respect your opinion, I am tired of angry talking points, so I will continue to post traps.  Please do your research.  It will serve you better

LOL.  Guess that makes you a master baiter. [B)] Keep going on with your verbal masterbation and republican talking points and change the debate strategy and I'll continue to call you names... because you deserve them... you consistently debase real debate...

You know, over the course of the last couple of years, I mistook you for some sort of libertarian/independent but when push comes to shove.... you are a complete and total SHILL for the Republican Party...

Although I'm sure you and Conan were fully supportive of McCain-Feingold... otherwise this earmark topic would just be a disingenous distraction from other more important issues, no?  

Here's the TRUTH.  Republican presidents are bigger spenders than their democrat opponents... so even if the FIVE senators who don't request any earmarks convince the 95 that do (including #81 ranked Barack Obama), Republicans will simply find some other loophole that will allow spending for pork projects they will use to get re-elected...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34.  Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%.  In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%.  In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year.  Those averages aren't that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.  

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman's term, the difference between the two parties' contributions to our national debt level change considerably.  Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year.  The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio.  Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties' debt philosophy.  They both worked together to minimize it.  However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency.  The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party's presidents.  The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year.  The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year.  That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6].  Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


He's also notorious for not leaving much of a paper trail...

as·per·sion (-spûrzhn, -shn)
n.
1. a. An unfavorable or damaging remark; slander: Don't cast aspersions on my honesty.
b. The act of defaming or slandering.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

But akuptsky...telling a lie is so much more fun.

Ever since Reagan got elected, the republicans have thought that "acting" is more important than "doing". Read the script and don't question the truth.

Line please!

That's hilarious.  Obama must be lying.  He released the information on the earmarks I mentioned.  

I was waiting for the regular numb-skulls to post a claim that Obama made fewer requests or something, but I didn't expect them to stretch it to $0.

You guys crack me up.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

Oops!  Guess your talking-points are a bit off.
Perhaps it's a right-wing conspiracy?
Those pesky Repubs control the Senate website you know.

Waterboy, while I respect your opinion, I am tired of angry talking points, so I will continue to post traps.  Please do your research.  It will serve you better

LOL.  Guess that makes you a master baiter. [B)] Keep going on with your verbal masterbation and republican talking points and change the debate strategy and I'll continue to call you names... because you deserve them... you consistently debase real debate...

You know, over the course of the last couple of years, I mistook you for some sort of libertarian/independent but when push comes to shove.... you are a complete and total SHILL for the Republican Party...

Although I'm sure you and Conan were fully supportive of McCain-Feingold... otherwise this earmark topic would just be a disingenous distraction from other more important issues, no?  

Here's the TRUTH.  Republican presidents are bigger spenders than their democrat opponents... so even if the FIVE senators who don't request any earmarks convince the 95 that do (including #81 ranked Barack Obama), Republicans will simply find some other loophole that will allow spending for pork projects they will use to get re-elected...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34.  Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%.  In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%.  In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year.  Those averages aren't that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.  

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman's term, the difference between the two parties' contributions to our national debt level change considerably.  Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year.  The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio.  Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties' debt philosophy.  They both worked together to minimize it.  However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency.  The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party's presidents.  The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year.  The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year.  That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6].  Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

I agree with most of that.  Years ago I was a Democrat until I could no longer agree with the pandering and illogical decisions made in the name of "caring for the people."  I came to realize that nearly all of these programs served to harm the people by creating a nanny state and strangling the people's abilities to create, invent, start and run their own businesses.  Unions insulated workers in industries that would never take advantage of the full potential of their character or capabilities.  Nearly all Democratic spending was designed to buy votes, and little of it went to the real function of government (infrastructure and national defense).

So I became a Republican until I realized that the revenue that Republicans could generate by stimulating business was already spent.  Granted a good amount was spent on better less consumable commodities, like national defense, and large scale infrastructure, but a majority was still funneled to worthless earmarks designed to pander and purchase votes.

I realized that there is no home for me in either party.  But. . . In an election it is necessary to choose the candidate that will do the least harm to the country, and at this time that person is not Obama.

We can debate this up and down, but if you want to participate in the debate by showing me how much more the Republicans spend than the Democrats, you are preaching to the choir brother!

We may debate over what it is spent on, but the amounts are in no question.  There needs to be less spending period.

Liberal talking points. . .3. . .2. . . 1

Voters who live off taxpayers are the Democrats' ace in the hole. The Democrats created big programs and never let the recipients forget it. This gives them an initial advantage of tens of millions of votes in any presidential election. – Joseph Sobran

[waterboy]

I have to thank you, Gas. Its very enlightening to get a glimpse of how the cynical rationalization process of Tulsa "Independent/Republicans" works. Its a Rube Goldberg mechanism that brings you around to where you started. Seriously, you paint yourselves into corners then justify it by blaming it on the paint.

If we could just get rid of those unions, welfare recipients, democrats and liberals, this country could get back to the greatness that was....1895!

I'm still not sure why you bother to be involved with talking politics unless its just the thrill of poking others in the eye, being a potential spoiler or just being able to say, "at the last minute I voted for the lesser of the two evils, which was (surprise!)a Republican" with a free conscience.

I'll stop harassing you. I think I've gleaned about as much as is possible.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I have to thank you, Gas. Its very enlightening to get a glimpse of how the cynical rationalization process of Tulsa "Independent/Republicans" works. Its a Rube Goldberg mechanism that brings you around to where you started. Seriously, you paint yourselves into corners then justify it by blaming it on the paint.

If we could just get rid of those unions, welfare recipients, democrats and liberals, this country could get back to the greatness that was....1895!

I'm still not sure why you bother to be involved with talking politics unless its just the thrill of poking others in the eye, being a potential spoiler or just being able to say, "at the last minute I voted for the lesser of the two evils, which was (surprise!)a Republican" with a free conscience.

I'll stop harassing you. I think I've gleaned about as much as is possible.

Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps I am cynical.  The current abuse of the system begs it.

I am also an optimist, and only through meaningful discourse can I grow.  

I enjoy focusing that discourse on politics just as you do.  I attempt to divorce myself from the regurgitation of talking points or political mantras.

The issues intrigue me and force me to research their origins.

So call me what names you will.  

Again, I will say that I respect your opinions, though I may not agree with them.

I will always try to be a gentleman.

[we vs us]

The funny thing about this "Democrats will spend us into the poorhouse" meme is that it's just not true, and it hasn't been true for more than 25 years.  Since Carter, look who's throwing the money around:



Knowing this, as I'm sure you do, I can't help but see your objections as objections not to spending level but to spending priorities.  Which, IMHO, is what ALL arguments about government spending boil down to.  It's not how much money is being spent, it's on who. And at this point, I think we can all agree that this "nanny-state" bull**** is code for "spending for the poor."  Which we wouldn't want to do, because certainly WE wouldn't want to interfere with the free market, who will tell us who should be poor and who shouldn't.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

The funny thing about this "Democrats will spend us into the poorhouse" meme is that it's just not true, and it hasn't been true for more than 25 years.  Since Carter, look who's throwing the money around:



Knowing this, as I'm sure you do, I can't help but see your objections as objections not to spending level but to spending priorities.  Which, IMHO, is what ALL arguments about government spending boil down to.  It's not how much money is being spent, it's on who. And at this point, I think we can all agree that this "nanny-state" bull**** is code for "spending for the poor."  Which we wouldn't want to do, because certainly WE wouldn't want to interfere with the free market, who will tell us who should be poor and who shouldn't.  

On total outlays: LBJ matches Ford. Clinton matches Nixon and Bush I. Carter matches Bush III. Curious bedfellows.

There seems to be no trend, only a ying yang cycle which probably follows the economy somewhat.

But the real meat of your post is proved in the defense vs non-defense spending. Reagan at the lowest non defense with the second lowest being Clinton. The highest defense spending being Bush III who outdid LBJ. I would like to see those numbers expressed as a proportion each one had of defense to non-defense.

Am I reading this right? Is it the annual % change during each term? Or the average of all the years served?

[avenirbyard]

Coal is burned in power plants to create steam, thereby powering turbines and generating both electricity and a diversity of harmful air pollutants. No matter how you look at it, there isn't much clean about coal. The extraction and burning of coal is considered the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, including oil and gas.

For more information visit: Obama clean coal