Biggest PIGS in America.........

[Dean Parisian]

www.cagw.org

This site lays it out. The massive waste of American money.

That means it's your money.


Dean Parisian
Team Muleys Pro Staff
http://chippewapartners.blogspot.com

 

[Cornhusker]

I hate to point this out but did all you loyal republicans catch that the top three porkers on the site which is not affiliated with any party as far as I can find out, All Three Are Republicans. The spendthrift democrats couldn't even crack the top three in Pork.

 

[RELH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-08 AT 02:48AM (MST)[p]Cornhusker;
I think you need to go back and re-read that web site. D-Jack Murtha was voted the "Porker" of the year with other Dems. Yes there was a few GOP in there also.
Most of this pork is generated by "earmarks" that members of congress attach to bills to benefit their pet projects. R-Demint sponsered a bill to stop those earmarks with a requirement that the needs to be based on "worthy" projects to help insure the money is being spent on projects that will benefit more of a majority of americans instead of a select few. 71 members of congress voted down his bill, 44 members were democrats of that 71. It seems that the dems are in the majority for protecting their pork barrels and create bigger spending.
All thee presidential candidates endorsed Demint's bill. McCain is noted to oppose frivious spending, do you wonder if Obama and Clinton would have endorsed it if they were not running for president? I know I do wonder how they would have voted if they were not running for president.
As I have said before, both parties need to vote out the porkers, the democrats just have more members of congress to throw out then the other party does. Does that tell you something?
That pig report also mentions this about the "earmarks" that was attached to bills by members of congress. Hillary Clinton had over 280 earmarks, Obama had 52 earmarks. John McCain had "0", none, nada, zip. I think that may say something about "pork spending" with the three running for president.

RELH

 

[Anaconda]

RELH has spelled it out for you, but I'll add to it.
This was on the CBS national news last night. The democrats took control of congress on a promise of reining in pork barrel spending, but since that day, earmarks and pork barrel have gone up 30%. Obama has acquired his share at just over $100 million, but Hillary is positively gluttons at over $300 million. As mentioned, John McCain was responsible for ZERO.

 

[TFinalshot]

Sure, every penny counts and the more ways we can reduce spending the better. But earmarks are a non issues and completely a non starter in terms of what to waist your energy on, if your concerned about spending.

Mostly the issues over earmarks are a diversion and meant to keep most of america from focusing on the real spending issues. The fact is that earmarks are a necessary evil in DC politcs, they are like chips in a poker game, if you dont have any chips, you cant play the game, and in DC it's all about the chips.

Earmarks as a matter of real spending is a waist of energy, when you find out that in real money it's only a fraction of a percent , it hardly warrants much debate.

Most earmark projects help LOCAL economy's, they are real true and needed spending that cant get bogged down in congress or stripped out by high over head and too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. I dont like wasteful spending but if you want to deal with wast, take on the real spenders and leave the earmarks for the the politicians to use as political chips.

Macain is an idiot to say that he would veto any bill with an earmark. he's playing political suicide and give his enemy the amunition to put in his own gun that is pointed directly between his own eyes . . .

By saying he would veto ANY bill with an ear marks means he'd veto his own party's bills, which he would not do. In fact could you imagine, all the dems would have to do would be to slip in a rider on ANY bill they dont want and mr. smarty, "no earmark" macain would be hooped. He'd have to send back the bill, or be called out for NOT keeping his promises. So, for what it costs to allow the congress and others play their games with a bit of chump change, we all get more out of the money that we all already are spending. . . If any of you had any real ambition to deal with real spending issues, you'd take on social security, housing, and defense. Most of you just like to grab on to what's popular in the media so it's understandable. Ask anyone that's been involved directly with the budget process and they will tell you earmarks are nothing in the spending puzzle.

Lastly earmarks are going down with the new congress, it peaked under the Bush presidency and a republican lead house and senate. . .

 

[RELH]

It's funny how some members on this forum play down any big or unnessary spending by democrats, but "hellfire and Brimstone" reins down if a GOP member is also guilty.
As for social security, that was bankrupted long ago by mostly Dems digging into the barrel and handing it out to people who never really payed into it. Burned out druggies who fried their brains to the point of being disable is one of the many examples,
Housing, are you talking about the concertration camps, ooops, excuse me, the project housing under the control of HUD that we placed all those poor deprived minorities in.
Defense, yep that has always been a big time spender. As long as we have countries out there that will love to blow us away, I can accept paying for that. At lease my own family gets a benefit out of that by not becoming a victim of a country that would send their armies in here if we got that weak.
We need to get rid of all the glutton pigs that spend our tax dollars on frivious B.S. to keep their seats in Gov. That accounts for about half the GOP and 3/4 of the Dems. as I see it.

RELH

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-08 AT 11:34AM (MST)[p]
Just talking about the facts RELH, this to me is not about your political party, or who you support. It matters not to me if youre a dem or republican, or whatever, earmarks are a non issue.

mcain is stupid for saying he'd veto a bill with earmarks. . . If he became president, he would go down in flames trying to keep is word.

How many budget bills have you worked on, how much time have you spend working up federal budgets, how many cycle of the federal budget processes have you been through?

The waste is in defense. That does not mean you get rid of the program it means you need to do some house cleaning and get the politicians to clean up the real spending mess.

Here, maybe if I make this easy you will "get-it."

BTW, do you see a piece of the pie called "earmarks?"

If you would like it cut up another way, here' it's the same FY 09 budget but it's broken down how the Bush Administration would prefer you see it. The issue still is the same, show me the piece of pie called, "earmarks."

Again, this is NOT about who you like or what political party or if your a man or a woman, it's about the budget and how congress and the political system functions. It's a system, if you must make changes in one place, you must know how and what will occur in another BEFORE you make the changes.

Change, like Obama "change" or change for the sake of change, is not really what were need either. Wasting your time on earmarks seems like the right thing to do because the media told you so, and you dont really know any different. Earmarks are easy for the media and people like you RELH, who dont really understand taxes and federal spending to latch onto and feel like they are doing their part by being "a part" of the political spending histeria. . .

Now go take on the day. . . .

 

[RELH]

Again you do the Texas two step dance. Earmarks is a very good place to start fiscal responsibility and hold every member of congress responsible for their own frivous spending.
Then we can go into the pieces of that pie you like to use to start cutting the fat out.
Now my question, why is it you are so darn hardheaded about cutting out "earmarks"? Are you receiving any of that money or are you worried that it may cut funds to projects dear to your liberal heart.

RELH

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-08 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]RELH, again youre showing your ignorance on this subject. That's okay because it's a complicated mess, and most dont want you or any other citizen to understand what's going on with earmarks.

First, I have no vested interest in a specific earmark. I do, on the other hand understand from the inside how the government operates and how earmarks work. One of the main reasons is that earmarks are not new money, they "live" withing the existing spending bill.

As a former manager of a very large federal budget, I can tell you fist hand that I hate earmarks for a number of reasons. First, it was up to senior managers to figure out how to use the money that congress appropriated for a specific purpose and spend in on the earmark - sometimes, but not always two separate bills. What people like YOU RELH and other's dont understand is that earmarks are NOT new money, they are NOT appropriations, they are spending that comes from and existing budget. Pork projects on the other hand can and usually are "new" money.

You can see how this could get ugly. First, if your appointed by the president to a position, youre there to carty out the mission of the administration within the laws set by congress. However, if an earmark comes along that is NOT an administrative priority, you have to use valuable and very limited resources to support often the oppositions party, this is why many times the party in power will have the most earmarks, because its a backdoor way to get your pet projects done without the opposition getting to say no. . .

So, when my office would get an ear mark, we would have to figure out what work will NOT get done (work that congress hold us to do) and then spend the money on a new "pet" project or earmark.

I also did not like earmarks because they make it hard to plan staff resources, or the operations budget, because at times earmarks can help change priorities. . . However, most earmarks are really just pass through moneys that are going on to a state or a contractor, so it's must more paperwork for what ever office becomes responsible for the earmark.

At the end of the day, contrary to what most believe, earmarks are not NEW spending, earmarks exist within the current appropriation. . . they are a pain because at times they can force you to move money, stop working on important projects or just add more paperwork. . .

What's your first had experience with earmarks RELH, or are you just popping off again?

 

[proutdoors]

Here is some 'firsthand' proof of monetary wealth gained by political 'service'. Now I get why politicians spend so much money running for office. The Clinton's are multi-millionairs solely because of being slick politicians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_taxes

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.

 

[TFinalshot]

okay proutdoors, now youre going to say that our system is bad. If you dont like it you should try living some place else.

The USA is the best nation in the world, even with its flaws. You doomsdayers, cup half empty guys crack me up. . .

You know it would be nice to live in a perfect world, but we instead live in a semi capitalistic society where we are encouraged to make money and where power is the goal.

Are you saying our system is bad, or somehow unamerican? Are you saying that people who follow the rules and the law but who make a lot of money are bad people?

Are you sure your NOT a liberal?

 

[proutdoors]

TF, did you hit your head this morning or what? I am not saying 'our' system is bad, unless 'our' system is running for office for monetary gain, then hell yes it is messed up. Do you think the Founders of this great nation risked their lives so that somewhere down the line a convicted LIAR could make over $100 million in 7 years simply because he is a former president. I thought 'our' system was that public 'servants' where SERVANTS, my bad.

I am all for people making as much as they can in the PRIVATE sector as a result of capitalism, but if YOU see nothing wrong with how the Clintons have become rich/powerful, then we do indeed live in different worlds. The means by which slick willy became wealthy has NOTHING to do with capitalism. Maybe you should look into the examples of TRUE capitalists like Franklin and Jefferson before you pipe off about willy being a capitalist.

Who is that sees the cup half empty? I say YOU are more pesstimistic than I could ever hope to be.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.

 

[TFinalshot]

"has NOTHING to do with capitalism."

PRO, please do explain . . . If what he's done has nothing to do with capitalism, you must work for the government. . .

 

[proutdoors]

TF, you are missing the forest for the trees AGAIN. My point is, would the Clintons be multi millionaires if they had relied on 'creating' value through the open market, or did that get their $$$ from public office and making connections while supposedely 'serving' the public. Why do you think the President of the United States makes LESS than the average CEO? Could it be that one should be in office to better OTHERS lives NOT their own? Odd how I hear complaints about the money Bush/Cheney made in the PRIVATE sector that was a result of merit, instead of Clinton/Gore who have made money as a direct result of being in office. If that is what you deem the 'American way', then the 'average joe' is screwed! I wonder, do you think the big oil execs should be penalized for making huge profits in the PRIVATE sector? Just curious about how you feel about REAL capitalism.

Did George Washington benefit or suffer in the wallet from serving his Country? How about Lincoln? I am NOT saying this is a left wing problem only, Utah has a Senator who has acquired millions while in office, btw he is a Republican. I do NOT believe it is 'capitalism' to acquire great wealth by being a politician regardless of what party they belong to. Earmarks are another example of politicians being BOUGHT and PAID by fat cats, which means the average citizen doesn't even fit into the equation. I always thought America was a represenative government, now thanks to you I see it is only representative of only a few, and THAT is the American 'way'. Thanks fo rthe civics lesson.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.

 

[1911]

Had to come check this post out. I was way off though, after reading the title I assumed it was going to be a discussion about Rosie!!

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-08 AT 05:28PM (MST)[p]okay pro, so the next popular political person, after they are out of office, should just say, "nope, i'm sorry I can take your money."

They cant take the money while they are in, that's why in my previous post I said legal. . .

EVERY politician and president in the history of the nation has accumulated wealth because of it. If you dont like that, you dont like america. . .

BTW, how did GWB get his millions? How about Mcain, how did he make his millions? His air force pension?

Yea. . . .

 

[RELH]

Tfinal wrote the following in his post to try to defend the use and need of "earmarks" within out budget systems used by members of congress.

"You have to use valuable and very limited resources to support often the OPPOSITIONS PARTY, this is why many times the PARTY IN POWER will have the MOST EARMARKS, because it is a BACKDOOR way to get your pet projects done WITHOUT THE OPPOSITION GETTING TO SAY NO ".

"As a former manager of a very large federal budget".

"What's your firsthand experience with earmarks RELH, or are you just popping off again."

My answer to Tfinal is this. You just admitted that earmarks are used by the party in power, democrats right now, that they are used as a ways and means to get around fiscal responsibility in order to get a congressmans little pet projects done by a "backdoor" route. Things like $ 188,000 dollars to the Lobster foundation. $ 200,000 to a group to study the sex life of red legged frogs. I could go on for hours, but I think everyone will get the drift about your precious earmarks.
No, I do not have first hand experience with earmarks like you do, what I do have is the intelligence to figure out why our fiscal responsibility has gone out the window with persons like you running federal budgets along with your cronies in congress and why you want to keep the earmarks. They are a way for the pork spenders to get around via the backdoor any checks and balances that should be in place to prevent this irresponsible spending in our goverment.
If that is popping off, I am guilty and many more should pop off to stop this foolish spending by morons and the porkers we have have in congress and their budget managers who do their bidding so blindly without any care or regards to the public.

RELH

 

[d13r]

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321


JB

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-08 AT 09:53PM (MST)[p]RELH, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

You see, as manager you get to spend the money, NOT make the choice TO spend it. Congress gets to tell the administrative agencies where to spend the money, the managers spend it. . .

Like I said, it does not matter who's in power, earmarks are real, but they represent such a minute part of the issue that only people who no little to nothing about where to spend their time worry about it. . .

fight global warming, you'd have more luck and likely make more sense. . .

earmarks mostly are about the public, in fact, it's the only real way to get federal moneys down to the ground at the local level without the reach of some spongy official fing it up for you. . .

 

[RELH]

Tfinal;

I as a citizen of this country do not have any problem with the "earmarks" getting down to the local level as they are designed to do. I am well aware of that being used by congressmen to get their pat on the back from the people who voted them into office.
My big complaint about them is the blantant abuse amounting to frivious spending on projects that the majority of voters would disapprove of if they were made aware of it. It is one thing to "earmark" money to improve levee systems to protect from flooding, but if the average citizen would ever take a look on what a large amount of this money is being wasted on, they would yell, Revolution to take back our goverment.
That bill that was voted down was needed to start a process to bring back some fiscal responsibility as a check and balance on the project being "worthy" of the funds being spent.
You have your opinion, and I have mine, and I will never agree with you on "earmarks". The other members on this forum will have to make their own decision about who they agree with.
I think most will see though your "spin" on this issue as being the same left field liberal ideas you have fostered in the past. Since you say it amounts to nothing, just how much is nothing on a yearly basis. Be careful if you spin that question, that amount can be checked. I am not speaking about all the earmark funds, just the amount that went to projects that the average voting citizen would more then likely object to as being not nessary or needed. I have not done a total check, but I am sure we are talking many many millions of dollars per year.


RELH

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-08 AT 07:44AM (MST)[p]two things, first, "see though your "spin" on this issue" this is not spin, this is politics and how it works my friend, second, as I pointed out, earmarks do NOT come with NEW money, so if you think we as tax payers will save a dime if we eliminate earmarks, you are out of your mind. . .

 

[RELH]

They come out of the money that has already been allocated in the budget for that agency. And if the agency fails to spend all the money, they run the risk of getting their budget reduced the next year for showing a balance left over. At that point alot of money gets wasted on BS projects in order to not show money left over after the budget year.
If we ran a business that way, we would go broke, since we do not have taxpayers that we can just raise the taxes on to stay afloat.

RELH

 

[TFinalshot]

Cant argue with that, now if it had something to do with earmarks it would be more useful.

Maybe youre helping now to make a better point, instead of allowing managers to NOT spend money, we should have MORE earmarks in order for there to be less money waisted - hows that for spin?