NationStates Jolt Archive


Six Senators Not Signing Up For Earmarks

Oklatex
16-06-2007, 17:03
These six Senators need to be congratulated for not wasting your money on Pork legislation. They are Republicans Tom Coburn, John McCain and Jim DeMint and Democrats Jay Rockefeller, Clair McCaskill and Russ Feingold.We need more politicians who will do this. If they did, we might be able to balance the budget some day.

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=129562
Siriusa
16-06-2007, 17:06
Damn libraries and roads! Who needs 'em!
Call to power
16-06-2007, 17:12
I'm left speechless...
The Nazz
16-06-2007, 17:13
You know, I'm for cutting waste out of government spending as much as the next guy, but let's not play this "if we cut earmarks, we'll make a difference in the budget" game. It's bullshit, and it's pathetic bullshit at that.

If you want to balance the budget by cutting spending (as opposed to raising taxes) there are only three places to do major damage--Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense. That's where the discussion begins and ends, because those are the only places where you can get the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to balance the budget based on cuts alone. So what's it gonna be?
Neesika
16-06-2007, 17:15
*listens to the crickets chirping*
Neesika
16-06-2007, 17:19
You fucking weirdos and your love of mutilating pigs as a symbolic ritual for not spending money.
Oklatex
16-06-2007, 17:20
You know, I'm for cutting waste out of government spending as much as the next guy, but let's not play this "if we cut earmarks, we'll make a difference in the budget" game. It's bullshit, and it's pathetic bullshit at that.

If you want to balance the budget by cutting spending (as opposed to raising taxes) there are only three places to do major damage--Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense. That's where the discussion begins and ends, because those are the only places where you can get the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to balance the budget based on cuts alone. So what's it gonna be?

I disagree. While cutting pork alone won't balance the budget, neither will just cutting the three items you mentioned. We need to cut pork, we need to cut out programs that are unnecessary in all areas of federal government. Why do we need a national department of education when it is the local school districts that are responsible for education? We need to improve the efficiency of the federal government work force. All of this will result in less spending. The point is we have to start somewhere so why not start with cutting pork across the board?
Nouvelle Wallonochia
16-06-2007, 17:23
To actually balance the Federal budget for any length of time would require not only a complete reform of the system but a radical change in the culture in Washington.

Personally, I'd prefer to see social programs to become entirely the purview of the states, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Nazz
16-06-2007, 17:32
I disagree. While cutting pork alone won't balance the budget, neither will just cutting the three items you mentioned. We need to cut pork, we need to cut out programs that are unnecessary in all areas of federal government. Why do we need a national department of education when it is the local school districts that are responsible for education? We need to improve the efficiency of the federal government work force. All of this will result in less spending. The point is we have to start somewhere so why not start with cutting pork across the board?

Here's the reason the whole "we have to start somewhere" attitude is crap. Singling out earmarks only gives the illusion of doing something and doesn't accomplish anything. Most earmarks go to local districts and come in at under a million dollars a piece, which is a pittance in a $6 trillion budget. A hundred grand makes a big difference to a small town, but isn't even an hour's worth of interest on the national debt.

Another reason it's bullshit is that it feeds the bullshit argument that we can cut our way to a balanced budget, and we can't. We need more revenue, because Bush's tax cuts have damaged the federal budget to a ridiculous level, and getting rid of earmarks won't change that. It's just a cheap scapegoat.

If you want to make cuts, real cuts, look at some of the ridiculous weapons systems we're spending billions on which don't do squat in the current global security climate. We're still building a 20th century military when we have 21st century concerns. Think we might be able to do something better with that money? We could get out of Iraq, seeing as that's costing us , what, $8 billion a month now? That's more than all the earmarks for any year put together. You want to start somewhere--that's a place to start.
Neesika
16-06-2007, 17:38
Think we might be able to do something better with that money? We could get out of Iraq, seeing as that's costing us , what, $8 billion a month now? That's more than all the earmarks for any year put together. You want to start somewhere--that's a place to start.

It always blows my mind how people can go on and on and on about unecessary expenditures like education and health care and infrastructure...ignoring the big elephant in the kitchen that is THE NUMBER ONE unecessary expenditure...the war machine. Fine, some people believe that it's absolutely necessary to keep that war machine rolling...well fine. Then keep a closer eye on exactly how the money greasing the gears is actually spent. I mean, at the very least.
Dobbsworld
16-06-2007, 17:46
You fucking weirdos and your love of mutilating pigs as a symbolic ritual for not spending money.

Yeah, I prefer the non-symbolic ritual of mutilating pigs for the purpose of having a really tasty bit of meat instead. Money doesn't enter into it.

Here, piggy piggy piggy...
Sel Appa
16-06-2007, 20:00
Feingold alone opposed the PATRIOT ACT. That's already enough to be congratulated for.
Prumpa
16-06-2007, 20:41
These politicians should be reprimanded. They should get as much money as they can. Especially McCain, because he's running for President.
Oklatex
16-06-2007, 22:01
These politicians should be reprimanded. They should get as much money as they can. Especially McCain, because he's running for President.

:confused: What the hell are you talking about. :confused:
Naturality
16-06-2007, 22:08
Feingold alone opposed the PATRIOT ACT. That's already enough to be congratulated for.

I like Feingold. He's pretty straight forward as far as politicians go. I didn't know he was the only one who opposed that though. Good for him.
Neo Undelia
16-06-2007, 22:09
Feingold alone opposed the PATRIOT ACT. That's already enough to be congratulated for.

Uh, sorry you're going to have to do a lot better than that to impress me. Congratulating someone for opposing the patriot act is like congratulating someone for managing to use a fork without poking their eye out.
Utracia
16-06-2007, 22:10
If you want to make cuts, real cuts, look at some of the ridiculous weapons systems we're spending billions on which don't do squat in the current global security climate. We're still building a 20th century military when we have 21st century concerns. Think we might be able to do something better with that money? We could get out of Iraq, seeing as that's costing us , what, $8 billion a month now? That's more than all the earmarks for any year put together. You want to start somewhere--that's a place to start.

Asking our politicians for practical solutions seems to be asking for too much. Dithering seems to be more their style.
CthulhuFhtagn
16-06-2007, 22:34
Uh, sorry you're going to have to do a lot better than that to impress me. Congratulating someone for opposing the patriot act is like congratulating someone for managing to use a fork without poking their eye out.

I think you went a bit too far with that one. It actually takes a tiny bit of skill to use a fork.
The Nazz
16-06-2007, 22:41
Uh, sorry you're going to have to do a lot better than that to impress me. Congratulating someone for opposing the patriot act is like congratulating someone for managing to use a fork without poking their eye out.

How about this--he was the only Senator to do so when there was intense political pressure from not only the administration, but also his own party and the press to go along. This was a month or so after the 9/11 attacks, and Feingold was the lone Senator to stand up and say "we don't even know what the hell is in this bill--it's our job to debate this sensibly." In a city where standing up for a principle is frowned upon, he did so.
Neo Undelia
16-06-2007, 23:41
How about this--he was the only Senator to do so when there was intense political pressure from not only the administration, but also his own party and the press to go along. This was a month or so after the 9/11 attacks, and Feingold was the lone Senator to stand up and say "we don't even know what the hell is in this bill--it's our job to debate this sensibly." In a city where standing up for a principle is frowned upon, he did so.

As I said, not impressed.
The Brevious
16-06-2007, 23:48
I think you went a bit too far with that one. It actually takes a tiny bit of skill to use a fork.
Yup. Leave it to the experts.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.fainting/
http://www.madcowprod.com/bush_pretzel.jpg
The Nazz
17-06-2007, 07:37
As I said, not impressed.

So what exactly would impress you, oh great judger of all things political?
Neo Undelia
17-06-2007, 08:14
So what exactly would impress you, oh great judger of all things political?

If someone called for a plan to gradually reduce funding to the military and distribute the funds to health-care and education.

If someone introduced a bill integrating the various school systems into one central organization.

A bill legalizing Marijuana, and refocusing the war on drugs exclusively to cocaine and meth, with a significantly smaller budget.

A bill legalizing Gay Marriage.

A politician recognizing the fact that he works for fucking us and he doesn't have the right not to answer questions that the press asks him.

And so much more really.
Christmahanikwanzikah
17-06-2007, 08:36
A politician recognizing the fact that he works for fucking us...

:D

Anywho, I'm sure it would be great if these senators weren't spending money on their own pet projects as it were.