The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BTW - I cant believe that the liberal media would be focusing so much on all of the Clinton Gaffe's overseas, eh?

You must get different liberal media than I see. I just noticed last night how the local news (Cox Broadcasting affiliate) did their little world segment featuring Hillary's successful trip overseas, even using the video of the button incident as the backdrop for the whole bit & made nary a single mention of the slightest wrinkle. For the average Atlantan (as this is the dominant TV news outlet in town) it's all sweetness & light.

Look, I don't think that's a significant incident much beyond the firing of whoever fucked up the label but I'm not sure that it wasn't worth at least a "In spite of a minor translation gaffe, the trip went well ..." etc. And if it had been Rice or any other (R) it would have been the focus of the entire piece.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As I understand it, he said that by the time Congress gets through with the expanded health care bill, it will be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill".

That's what all this is about? WTF?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You must get different liberal media than I see. I just noticed last night how the local news (Cox Broadcasting affiliate) did their little world segment featuring Hillary's successful trip overseas, even using the video of the button incident as the backdrop for the whole bit & made nary a single mention of the slightest wrinkle. For the average Atlantan (as this is the dominant TV news outlet in town) it's all sweetness & light.

Look, I don't think that's a significant incident much beyond the firing of whoever fucked up the label but I'm not sure that it wasn't worth at least a "In spite of a minor translation gaffe, the trip went well ..." etc. And if it had been Rice or any other (R) it would have been the focus of the entire piece.

the gaffe was on the front of yahoo news and CNN news so in my world the negative was highlighted. I dont get Atlanta TV

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the gaffe was on the front of yahoo news and CNN news so in my world the negative was highlighted. I dont get Atlanta TV

My own preferred portal site had it up briefly as well? But it lasted for how long? Less than half a day on mine, YMMV naturally. But I'd say the minimum for it with an (R) in a similar situation would have been 48 hours and the lead position on at least three network evening news broadcasts.

[Flasch186]

drilling down to hours is desperate in trying to keep the media bias' gas tank filled....AND more importantly, IMO the country doesnt buy it and has begun to view that card as a "whiny" argument. FWIW

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

drilling down to hours is desperate in trying to keep the media bias' gas tank filled....AND more importantly, IMO the country doesnt buy it and has begun to view that card as a "whiny" argument. FWIW

If reality is "whiny" then fuck those who think so. Just one more battleground in the war of good vs evil and the sooner it comes to a head the better. It's a very real situation, the thing is, we've become a nation where a lot of people simply don't care and aren't the least bit interested in the truth.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just one more battleground in the war of good vs evil and the sooner it comes to a head the better.

Problem is the people that think like you never have and never will come out on the victorious side.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If reality is "whiny" then fuck those who think so. Just one more battleground in the war of good vs evil and the sooner it comes to a head the better. It's a very real situation, the thing is, we've become a nation where a lot of people simply don't care and aren't the least bit interested in the truth.

People don't care because most of the stuff that partisians bicker over doesn't matter. Most people don't give a shit if Clinton misspoke or about some earmarks in a bill. None of that stuff has any effect on most Americans. They care about their family and job, not whether Charles Gibson gave the Clinton gaffe enough airplay.

The "battleground" is between a small group of Americans on both sides. If you want the rest of the people to care about things more, get some issues that matter. Not whether Johnny Christian can pray in school or whether Steve and Gary are allowed to marry.

[RainMaker]

This is one of the best articles I've read in awhile and it comes from a staunch conservative. There is little I disagree with in what he says. If the Republican Party can move in the direction he talks about, I would be on board.

Why Rush is Wrong | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by miked

Karl Marx would probably be sick to his stomach with people thinking this was a path to socialism.

Maybe you need to reread Marx yourself. Karl Marx took a flawed economic system and was able to sell it to the masses and he did it by taking advantage of two things. The first is strength in numbers, and the second is that those who are less successful always have a natural envy and resentment of the more successful.

He created a populist message that appealed to the proletariat. He told them that they were being exploited by a rigged system that favored the bourgeoise - capitalism. Capitalism does ultimately favor the few at the expense of the many because capitalism forces competition, and in any competition there are winners and losers. Like the system or not, it has led to the standard of living most of us enjoy today.

Ultimately, what Marx did was practice class warfare. He pitted the proletariat against bourgeoise. He demonized the bourgeoise and the system that made them successful.

Today's Democratic party uses class warfare just as liberally as Marx did. Been part of the playbook for as long as I've been paying attention to politics.

...but then again that would actually require you to think and read about what you say before you say it.

It fascinates me how apologists for the left are so quick to attack the intelligence of those who don't fall lockstep into line with their philosophies and political goals. Seriously, I thought you guys were the ones who were supposed to be open-minded and tolerant.

But then, most hard-core lefties I've met do tend to have an elitist mindset ... after all, they are so much wiser and more enlightened than the rest of us "rubes."

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is one of the best articles I've read in awhile and it comes from a staunch conservative. There is little I disagree with in what he says. If the Republican Party can move in the direction he talks about, I would be on board.

Why Rush is Wrong | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com

Rush is merely an entertainer. He is though, often (not always) correct about a number of things, and this is why the left hates him. He has a powerful forum to voice opposing opinions while the left demands conformity. Therefore this is a play by the White House to discredit and marginalize him. It is an attempt to silence dissenting opinion, and the beginning of a wider assault on talk radio and free speech. Mr. Frum sounds like someone who has taken the left's bait, and he comes across as an intellectual lemming. Is Frum going to talk about the dangerous motives of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, quite possibly two of thie most incompetent elected officials we have ever seen? I doubt it. Someone has to. You don't stay on the air for 20 plus years if you are simply peddling hate. Just look at Air America.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Ultimately, what Marx did was practice class warfare. He pitted the proletariat against bourgeoise. He demonized the bourgeoise and the system that made them successful.

Today's Democratic party uses class warfare just as liberally as Marx did. Been part of the playbook for as long as I've been paying attention to politics.

That's what politics is though. It's pitting classes and groups against one another. You don't think that giving speeches about the lazy welfare reciepients stealing from the wealthy is a form of class welfare?

Republicans target their groups like hispanics, blacks, women, and atheists all the time. Democrats target their groups too. This is hardly new and hardly a sign that Barack Obama has a copy of the Communist Manifesto under his bed. We are talking about a guy who has supported every move to fund the losses of wealthy bankers and rich financial investors. Not exactly something Karl Marx would support.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is hardly new and hardly a sign that Barack Obama has a copy of the Communist Manifesto under his bed. We are talking about a guy who has supported every move to fund the losses of wealthy bankers and rich financial investors. Not exactly something Karl Marx would support.

One could also argue that this could be the beginning of a massive government power grab -- nationalizing most of the major private industries in the country. Obama has backed away from the idea when questioned, but I suppose we'll find out as we move forward.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Rush is merely an entertainer. He is though, often (not always) correct about a number of things, and this is why the left hates him. He has a powerful forum to voice opposing opinions while the left demands conformity. Therefore this is a play by the White House to discredit and marginalize him. It is an attempt to silence dissenting opinion, and the beginning of a wider assault on talk radio and free speech. Mr. Frum sounds like someone who has taken the left's bait, and he comes across as an intellectual lemming. Is Frum going to talk about the dangerous motives of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, quite possibly two of thie most incompetent elected officials we have ever seen? I doubt it. Someone has to. You don't stay on the air for 20 plus years if you are simply peddling hate. Just look at Air America.

I don't think the left hates him. His opinions they hate, but not the man. Rush is a Christmas gift. He does extremely poor in opinion polls and has put himself at the front of the party. Why would any Democrat hate a guy who is unpopular and leading their opposition party? He's their George Bush replacement. I don't see how this is an attack on free speech at all. In fact, I think the left would love Rush to continue on with what he's doing.

I don't see how Frum is an intellectual lemming for stating that it's really stupid to have the face of your party be an obnoxious entertainer with huge unfavorables. Or for stating that it might be smart to loosen up on some of the issues that are killing them with certain demographics. That actually seems like smart politics to me. Perhaps you are happy with the Republican Party maintaining irrelevancy for the next generation, but I don't think he is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

One could also argue that this could be the beginning of a massive government power grab -- nationalizing most of the major private industries in the country. Obama has backed away from the idea when questioned, but I suppose we'll find out as we move forward.

That already took place last year when we more or less nationalized the mortgage, banking, investment, and insurance industries. I wouldn't exactly call it a power grab and instead a move of desperation. The alternative was to let these institutions fail.

[larrymcg421]

No one thinks it was a good thing for the Republicans to apologize to Limbaugh, right? It was undoubtedly stupid, wasn't it?

So basically this comes down to whining that the Big Bad Media came down in their black helicopters and forced the Republicans to be stupid. Heh.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That already took place last year when we more or less nationalized the mortgage, banking, investment, and insurance industries. I wouldn't exactly call it a power grab and instead a move of desperation. The alternative was to let these institutions fail.

I also seem to recall that at the time TARP 1 was rolled out, Senator Obama was depicted as showing leadership while McCain was "erratic". Unless the narrative at the time was unmitigated BS, that would mean candidate Obama had a lot of input in TARP 1 and owns that part of the problem too. Seems to me he didn't "inherit" this issue, he was fully invested in it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I also seem to recall that at the time TARP 1 was rolled out, Senator Obama was depicted as showing leadership while McCain was "erratic". Unless the narrative at the time was unmitigated BS, that would mean candidate Obama had a lot of input in TARP 1 and owns that part of the problem too. Seems to me he didn't "inherit" this issue, he was fully invested in it.

I wasn't saying he isn't invested in it. I'm saying this supposed power grab is nothing new, it's been going on for over a year now. It seemed odd that Republicans didn't care much about it till Obama got in power. I also consider the move a desperate attempt to save the economy and not a "power grab". The options are to take these companies over or let them go out of business.

[Flasch186]

HA!

Ive watched this thing unfold daily going back to well before the NY AG got caught with his hooker, way back before that, when Bush, McCain and Paulson all said everything was fine. I'd say we're in the shit today because of how long people ignored the fundamentals and not because of TARP and trying to help slowly unravel this monolith. however you know where I stand and luckily Warren Buffet and Bernanke agree with me so I dont feel like Im totally out on a limb by myself.

Anyways, Rush is terrific for the Democratic party....truly a gift that keeps on giving.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the left hates him. His opinions they hate, but not the man.

Considering all the personal insults I see when people are commenting about him (regarding his weight, his failed marriages, his pain killer addiction, how they wish he'd have a heart attack and die), I would say they don't separate him from his opinions and that they literally hate the man.

[Flasch186]

but he brings it on himself by telling people that the government should throw the drug addicts awaya nd throw away the key without an ounce of empathy...then has an addiction himself that was insidious enough to hurt his hearing and cause him to get his houseworkers involved in it.

If anyone wishes anyone death I'd say theyre wrong however I KNOW that Rush has wished that upon people himself.

The 'out' of he's an entertainer may help one absolve themself from his vinegar but it doesnt change the fact that when he chooses to inject himself into the debate as the figurehead then his entertainer coat gets hung at the door IMO. I wish him a long long line of health in regards to his voice and his mic. He is the best thing to happen to the Dems since 2006.

eh, no point in debating it with you as Im sure you feel the same in regards to debating the issue with me....neither side wins until you can claim it as 'its getting personal in here' and than its a waste of time. For 5 years the only person to change their stance on anything is Bubbawheels, by leaving and WVUFan by admittance.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Considering all the personal insults I see when people are commenting about him (regarding his weight, his failed marriages, his pain killer addiction, how they wish he'd have a heart attack and die), I would say they don't separate him from his opinions and that they literally hate the man.

Fine, then I'll make a correction. Democrats who understand how elections are won love him.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Anyways, Rush is terrific for the Democratic party....truly a gift that keeps on giving.

Guess we'll find out at the midterms and the next presidential election cycle.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Fine, then I'll make a correction. Democrats who understand how elections are won love him.

Ha, there's a big cross section of the electorate.

Rainmaker, I generally agree with what you're saying about Limbaugh. He hasn't said anything that seems relevant to me in at least a decade, and it's distressing to see people still taking him seriously. All that said, no way is it true that Dems hate the man's ideas, but not the man. Come on, gimme a break. Dems are no more superhuman than anyone else--they, too, hate individuals as well as ideas, and are as subject to individual bias as they are ideological. Dems absolutely can't stand Limbaugh, and personally, and it's been a well-known fact for 20 years now.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also consider the move a desperate attempt to save the economy and not a "power grab". The options are to take these companies over or let them go out of business.

I guess we'll find out if/when things start to stablize. I've never seen government willingly let something go once its gotten its fingers into it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Guess we'll find out at the midterms and the next presidential election cycle.

just ask MBBF how to make a loss look like a win.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Rush is merely an entertainer. ... You don't stay on the air for 20 plus years if you are simply peddling hate.

Do you not get how the 2nd statement is made irrelevant by the first? Seriously? Why is Al Sharpton always in the goddamn news? Its because he's an incorrigible blowhard who steals the limelight and has appointed himself as the de facto spokesman of the "Black" community; his approval ratings are singularly awful, but to the people who follow him, there is some need for acceptance; every idiot who shows up at their local Klan rally goes to "apologize" to him, and he gleefully accepts it. The GOP, to its credit, realized this, and the Weekly Standard had a wonderful piece on how Roger Stone helped fund Sharpton's last presidential campaign. Elevating the other side's most useful idiot to the provisional bully pulpit is a wonderful tactical move. Now, there's not a dime's difference in terms of credibility between Rush and Sharpton, except the latter's following is significantly less than former. Rush's interests as an entertainer are not neccessarily the interests of the GOP (if we postulate the GOP's desire is to govern as a majority party). Its a lot easier to bitch about the man when your party doesn't control every arm of the government (to his credit, facts never stopped Rush before) - I think Dem control is going to be great for Rush's ratings.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Most people don't give a shit .... about some earmarks in a bill. None of that stuff has any effect on most Americans.

I couldn't disagree more with the above. Wasteful spending has a direct impact on every American. Whether they are smart enough to notice it and call it out as being wrong is another thing.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think Steele was a dumb pick and I don't think he is remotely qualified to bring the GOP back. I don't think the other options were good either though.

I think you're correct here, but the other thing to take into account is the question of who in the GOP would really want the job in this election cycle? I think that, plus Steele's own personal campaigning for the job, is the main reason why he got the job.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Bobby Rush doesn't matter. I'd argue that most of the country has never even heard of him. But he has taken a lot of heat, particularly here in Chicago for his comments. It would be a bigger story I'd imagine if Bobby Rush mattered and had any national presence.

Speaking as a fellow Chicagoan, I think the only thing Bobby Rush did with his comments was guarantee that the Senate seat will be won by a white person in 2010 (a white Democrat if Burris fails in the Primary, a white Republican if he wins the primary - I'd say a black Republican could have a shot too, but I don't believe the state GOP has any prominent ones on their bench).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is one of the best articles I've read in awhile and it comes from a staunch conservative. There is little I disagree with in what he says. If the Republican Party can move in the direction he talks about, I would be on board.

A good column, and I think one of the most interesting aspects is that someone like David Frum actually feels the need to prove his bona fides at the start of the column before launching into the meat of his message. What has the GOP come to when someone like this needs to immediately address the idea that he's a RINO before talking about actual substantive issues?

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Maybe you need to reread Marx yourself. Karl Marx took a flawed economic system and was able to sell it to the masses and he did it by taking advantage of two things. The first is strength in numbers, and the second is that those who are less successful always have a natural envy and resentment of the more successful.

This is actually not a bad post. However, the meat of your argument does indicate that while you've read The Communist Manifesto, you haven't read Das Kapital.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Considering all the personal insults I see when people are commenting about him (regarding his weight, his failed marriages, his pain killer addiction, how they wish he'd have a heart attack and die), I would say they don't separate him from his opinions and that they literally hate the man.

Actually, I'll happily admit that I hate Rush Limbaugh (though, to speak to RM's point, I'm glad he exists for all the tactical pain he causes the GOP every few years). He's on my list of people I'd actually try to punch if I met them in real life, which also includes Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity. I'd put Ann Coulter on there, but I'm afraid she'd snap like a twig, and I'd rather not do time for murder.

[DaddyTorgo]

my problem with Rush is that he's a hypocrite.

If he wasn't railing on other people for having painkiller addictions and marriage problems then I'd have no problem with them in his life. But the fact that he calls others out for them and then wants to get a free-pass for his...it doesn't work that way.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I actually like this idea from Obama about loosening the restrictions on Cuba, though putting it in yet another wasteful spending bill is a lousy idea as it holds no relevance to that bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...administration

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I couldn't disagree more with the above. Wasteful spending has a direct impact on every American. Whether they are smart enough to notice it and call it out as being wrong is another thing.

Earmarks account for .06% of our total national budget. Some of it is used for frivolous stuff, but some of it is actually used for legitimate expenses like a new highway. In the end, even if you cut out every earmark from the budget, it would have very little effect on our deficit.

Wasteful spending is also a matter of perspective. You may find welfare to be a waste, but someone on it would see that as something valuable. You may find the Bridge to Nowhere a huge waste, but I'm sure there were some construction workers who thought it was money well spent.

I'd guarantee that most of the public doesn't wake up and think about the latest earmark in the budget bill. They wake up thinking about their job, faith, and family. Whether you agree with them taking that matter lightly is not the point. My point was that the average American has bigger things in his life to worry about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Ha, there's a big cross section of the electorate.

Rainmaker, I generally agree with what you're saying about Limbaugh. He hasn't said anything that seems relevant to me in at least a decade, and it's distressing to see people still taking him seriously. All that said, no way is it true that Dems hate the man's ideas, but not the man. Come on, gimme a break. Dems are no more superhuman than anyone else--they, too, hate individuals as well as ideas, and are as subject to individual bias as they are ideological. Dems absolutely can't stand Limbaugh, and personally, and it's been a well-known fact for 20 years now.

I don't know about that. People like having the bad guy. They like booing the Yankees and the heel wrestler. While there is huge disdain toward that person, subconciously they realize that it's just not as much fun without an enemy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Earmarks account for .06% of our total national budget. Some of it is used for frivolous stuff, but some of it is actually used for legitimate expenses like a new highway. In the end, even if you cut out every earmark from the budget, it would have very little effect on our deficit.

Wasteful spending is also a matter of perspective. You may find welfare to be a waste, but someone on it would see that as something valuable. You may find the Bridge to Nowhere a huge waste, but I'm sure there were some construction workers who thought it was money well spent.

I'd guarantee that most of the public doesn't wake up and think about the latest earmark in the budget bill. They wake up thinking about their job, faith, and family. Whether you agree with them taking that matter lightly is not the point. My point was that the average American has bigger things in his life to worry about.

Yeah, I'm not sure I could disagree more with that characterization. Minimizing the impact of things being added to bills is off the mark. There's a lot of things that are snuck through that should never see the light of day. The stimulus bill was a fine example of legislators passing a law not even fully knowing what they were voting on. Your percentage is also very much up for argument, as the criteria used for wasteful endeavors depending on the person defining it can be different depending on who's making that judgement.

[Flasch186]

so what's your % that is earmarks included in the bill dollar wise?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, I'm not sure I could disagree more with that characterization. Minimizing the impact of things being added to bills is off the mark. There's a lot of things that are snuck through that should never see the light of day. The stimulus bill was a fine example of legislators passing a law not even fully knowing what they were voting on. Your percentage is also very much up for argument, as the criteria used for wasteful endeavors depending on the person defining it can be different depending on who's making that judgement.

How could the percentage be up for argument? He mentioned earmarks, which are a specific action taken to add stuff to a bill. So it is not up for debate (unless of course the percentage is just plain wrong). Wasteful endeavors are up for definition depending on the person, which is exactly what Rainmaker said in the very post you quoted. So you pretty much responded without refuting one single thing that Rainmaker said. Good job!

[Flasch186]

except the % I think, So I've asked for his unpartisan %.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

except the % I think, So I've asked for his unpartisan %.

The % is probably a rolling average. And there's no way it can be accurate if it involves North Carolina.

[Flasch186]

damn.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How could the percentage be up for argument? He mentioned earmarks, which are a specific action taken to add stuff to a bill. So it is not up for debate (unless of course the percentage is just plain wrong). Wasteful endeavors are up for definition depending on the person, which is exactly what Rainmaker said in the very post you quoted. So you pretty much responded without refuting one single thing that Rainmaker said. Good job!

My point in both posts was directed towards wasteful spending. You're technically correct in regards to the percentage, but that earmark percentage doesn't include the copious amount of waste that are included as being 'necessary' in many government programs. Your point is taken.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, I'm not sure I could disagree more with that characterization. Minimizing the impact of things being added to bills is off the mark. There's a lot of things that are snuck through that should never see the light of day. The stimulus bill was a fine example of legislators passing a law not even fully knowing what they were voting on. Your percentage is also very much up for argument, as the criteria used for wasteful endeavors depending on the person defining it can be different depending on who's making that judgement.

The percent is for earmarks, not wasteful spending.

I'm not arguing wasteful spending or whether the politicians read the bill or not. I'm just saying that most Americans don't give a shit about it right now. Especially when the cries come from the party that had tons of wasteful spending and earmarks this decade. It's tough to act fiscally conservative when you just dumped trillions into a pointless war in Iraq that killed thousands of Americans.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The percent is for earmarks, not wasteful spending.

I'm not arguing wasteful spending or whether the politicians read the bill or not. I'm just saying that most Americans don't give a shit about it right now. Especially when the cries come from the party that had tons of wasteful spending and earmarks this decade. It's tough to act fiscally conservative when you just dumped trillions into a pointless war in Iraq that killed thousands of Americans.

I've seen this argument posted elsewhere. Without getting into the merits, who IS able to complain about wasteful spending and earmarks? Not Republicans, because they didn't act fiscally responsible before. Not Democrats, because they aren't acting fiscally responsible now. So in your view, who gets to complain about this stuff?

[lordscarlet]

Libertarians

[miked]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've seen this argument posted elsewhere. Without getting into the merits, who IS able to complain about wasteful spending and earmarks? Not Republicans, because they didn't act fiscally responsible before. Not Democrats, because they aren't acting fiscally responsible now. So in your view, who gets to complain about this stuff?

I guess people who vote for these schmoes hoping to get earmarks for their district? I mean, really we can complain but it doesn't really matter...it will happen and that's their job, to get things for their constituents. It is laughable that republicans would cry about it since 40% of the earmarks in the current bill belong to people from their party. Likewise, it's silly that the dems, who are in power, are allowing it to continue knowing the big deal that was made about it during the last election cycle.

But really, as the original posters said, it really doesn't make much difference in the overall budget and some of these are actually useful projects. Would you vote for a congressperson who vowed not to try and get money for your district? Or would you rather the entire House convene and vote on whether a bridge in your neighborhood that is falling apart should be fixed?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've seen this argument posted elsewhere. Without getting into the merits, who IS able to complain about wasteful spending and earmarks? Not Republicans, because they didn't act fiscally responsible before. Not Democrats, because they aren't acting fiscally responsible now. So in your view, who gets to complain about this stuff?

People who were fiscally conservative all along. People who spoke out against it. If that means no one in Congress, than so be it. I just can't stand hypocrits and the Republicans are acting like it right now.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've seen this argument posted elsewhere. Without getting into the merits, who IS able to complain about wasteful spending and earmarks? Not Republicans, because they didn't act fiscally responsible before. Not Democrats, because they aren't acting fiscally responsible now. So in your view, who gets to complain about this stuff?

I think the main point is that voters aren't going to take the Republicans seriously when they cry about wasteful spending. In essence, the Republicans took a good issue for them off the table because of their actions over the past 8 years.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who were fiscally conservative all along. People who spoke out against it. If that means no one in Congress, than so be it.

Ron Paul!

[sterlingice]

Is there any way to close the executive order "loophole"? I'm all for undoing a lot of the crap from the last 8 years, but it just seems like a nice way to make a law without having to go through the legislative branch.

SI

[Buccaneer]

You try submitting something to Congress without having it piled on with a bunch of expensive crap.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who were fiscally conservative all along. People who spoke out against it. If that means no one in Congress, than so be it. I just can't stand hypocrits and the Republicans are acting like it right now.

So you would rather have no one advocate a fiscally sound position rather than have only a hypocrite advocate it? Isn't that a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face?