Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Nov 30, 2010.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this will save money. All an earmark is, is directing where money already approved to be spent is going to be spent.
It's not as if the money wasn't going to be spent if there wasn't an earmark.
I believe this is to stop the pet projects that get tacked on to bills.
It really amazes me that everyone agrees that we should get spending under control but every attempt to do so is met with opposition.
Earmark reform- it isn't enough money saved so let's keep letting pols allocate money to wasteful projects.
Raise SS retirement age- Oh noes, not the old people.
Cut SS benefits - Oh noes, not the old people.
Cut defense spending - Oh noes, not our lord and masters.
Let's face it, we're ****ed.
+1 - it appears our populous and our political leaders are unwilling or unable to make the decisions necessary to turn this country around. I've got a bad feeling things are going to get much worse before they get better.
BTW, NT1440 is right to a certain extent, the earmarks don't actually increase the price of the bill... and that's really the job of the congress... to determine how money is spent - however since the introduction of the federal income tax this has given the congressman way too much power and way too much opportunity to spend like wild and do whatever necessary to get money back to their own congressional district through the earmark process. In a perfect world, with a constitutionally controlled and limited federal government with specifically enumerated powers, there would be nothing wrong with earmarks at all. Under the system we have now, I'd argue the opposite is true.
Oh BS. The Republicans had most of the GWB administration not only in control of all branches of government, but they were able to get their legislative agenda implemented. They lowered taxes, eliminated or weakened regulatory oversight, and basically did whatever they wanted. They had the will and ability to make the decisions that they felt were necessary. They led us to the brink of collapse. The American people elected democrats on the premise that they were going to have the will to make the decisions necessary to turn things around. Unfortunatley, the Republicans have been incredibly effective at blocking their ability to get things done, and the Democrats haven't played hard ball and have given up on the progressive ideas that may have helped before even really trying for them (single payor is a good example).
I personally agree with more of the ideas from the Democrats right now, but to say that "our political leaders are unwilling or unable to make the decisions necessary to turn this country around" as a blanket statement is false when in reality it is clear that one party is willing and able to block the other party's decisions and is unwilling and unable to compromise on anything no matter how desperate the country is for compromise.
Isn't the AARP crowd the largest consistent voting bloc? Playing with the benefits (other than increasing them) is pretty much political suicide, which is why no one will go near it.
Not to mention many of those on fixed income are required to spend the money they get, and thus the multiplier effect of SS money should be higher than other "spending." (See unemployment benefits as another example of high multiplier). Cutting spending on high multiplier expenditures does nothing but hurt the economy as a whole (hey GOP, extend unemployment benefits. It's the holidays for goodness sakes.)
Most old people vote, but is this just an extension of what they did when they were younger? Do less young people vote today than young people of previous generations?